THE ANNUAL 


_ AMERICAN SCHOOLS 
OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH 


(Continuing the Annuat of the American School of 
Oriental Research in Jerusalem) 


Vou. IV 


FOR 1922-1923 


EXCAVATIONS AND RESULTS AT TELL EL-FUL (GIBEAH OF SAUL) 
BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE SCHOOL IN JERUSALEM 
W. F, ALBRIGHT 


EDITED FOR THE MANAGING COMMITTEE BY 
BENJAMIN W. BACON 


nf PUBLISHED BY THE 
AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH 


NEW HAVEN : YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
SALES AGENTS 


1924 





~~ 


LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
PRINCETON. N. J. 


PRESENTED BY 


Reef dah DDavis 


Division....Lué. m2 lO; 


co 
Bae hers ~/ 


yrs 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from — 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/excavationsresul0Oalbr 


* 


eras 4 


bea 
Ha 


ge 





repre 
B ihie 
wetted Ne ph es 
cite tl ean 
Fr ed a! 











ANNUAL OF THE AMERICAN 


SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH 


PRINTED FOR THE 
AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH IN JERUSALEM AND BAGDAD 
AND UNDER ITS DIRECTION BY 
THE TUTTLE, MOREHOUSE & TAYLOR COMPANY 
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 


THE ANNUAL 


Cr Ei 


AMERICAN SCHOOLS 
OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH 


(Continuing the ANNUAL of the American School of 
Oriental Research in Jerusalem) 


VObe LV 


FOR 1922-1923 


EXCAVATIONS AND RESULTS AT TELL EL-FUL.(GIBEAH OF SAUL) 
BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE SCHOOL IN JERUSALEM 
W. F.YALBRIGHT 


EDITED FOR THE MANAGING COMMITTEE BY 
. BENJAMIN W. BACON 


PUBLISHED BY THE 
AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH 


NEW HAVEN : YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
SALES AGENTS 


1924 








AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH 


Founded 1900, incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, 1920 


TRUSTEES (For 1923) 


Cyrus Apter, President of the Dropsie College 

Bensgamin W. Bacon, Professor, Yale University 

Grorce A. Barton, Professor, University of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia 
Divinity School 

Romain Burttn, Professor, Catholic University of America 

MircHeLtt Carrow, Professor, George Washington University, Editor of 
Art and Archaeology 

ALBERT T. Cuay, Professor, Yale University 

R. V. D. Magorrin, President of the Archaeological Institute of America, 
and Professor, New York University 

JULIAN MORGENSTERN, President of the Hebrew Union College 

JAMES A. Montaomery, Professor, University of Pennsylvania and Phila- 
delphia Divinity School 

Warren J. Mounton, President of the Bangor Theological Seminary 

Dana C. Munro, Professor, Princeton University 

Epwarp T. News n, President of the American Numismatic Society 

JAMES H. Ropers, Professor, Harvard University 

Witrrep H. Scuorr, Secretary of the Commercial Museum 

Cuarues C. Torrey, Professor, Yale University 


OFFICERS 


JAMES A. Montaomery, President, 6806 Greene Street, Germantown, Phila- 
delphia 

CHARLES C. Torrey, Ist Vice-President 

A. V. WiuuiAMs Jackson, 2d Vice-President 

Grorce A. Barton, Secretary and Treasurer, 3725 Chestnut Street, Phila- 
delphia 

Witrrep H. Scuorr, Associate Secretary, Commercial Museum, Phila- 
delphia 


THe Provipent Trust COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA, Assistant Treasurer 
Messrs. Henry, PEPPER, BoDINE AND StToKEs, Philadelphia, Counsel. 


. 


vi AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH 


CORPORATION MEMBERS 


INSTITUTIONS 


AMHERST COLLEGE, President George Oldman 

AUBURN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. Wm. J. Hinke 

Bancor THEOLOGICAL Seminary, President Warren J. Moulton 
Brown University, Prof. Henry T. Fowler 

Bryn Mawr Couusce, Prof. John A. Maynard 

CatHouic University, Prof: R. Butin 

CotuMBIA University, Prof. R. J. H. Gottheil 

ComMeErRcIAL Museum (Philadelphia), Wilfred H. Schoff, M.A. 
CoRNELL University, Prof. Nathaniel Schmidt 

Crozer THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, President Milton G. Evans 
DropsiE Conuncr, President Cyrus Adler 

Emory University, Prof. W. A. Shelton 

EpiscopaL THEOLOGICAL ScHOooL (Cambridge), Prof. Max. L. Kellner 
GARRETT BisuicaL INstituTE, Prof. Carl Hiselen 

GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. L. W. Batten 

GoucHER COLLEGE, President Wm. W. Guth 

Hartrorp THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. Lewis B. Paton 
Harvarp University, Prof. D. G. Lyon 

Haverrorp CouuEGcE, Prof. Elihu Grant 

Hesrew Unton Couuece, President Julian Morgenstern 

JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Dr. Cyrus Adler 

JoHNns Hopkins University, Prof. Paul Haupt 
LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. Herbert C. Alleman | 
McCormick THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. Geo. . Robinson 
MEADVILLE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. Francis A. Christie 
Mount Honyvoxke CouuEce, President Mary E. Woolley 

Newton THEOLOGICAL INstTITUTION, Prof. Winfred N. Donovan 
OBERLIN GRADUATE ScHoou oF THEOLOGY, Prof. Kemper Fullerton 
PHILADELPHIA Divinity ScHoon, Prof. R. K. Yerkes 

PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. John D. Davis 
PRINCETON University, Prof. Frank F. Abbott 

REFORMED THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY (Lancaster), Prof. I. H. DeLong 
ROCHESTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, President Clarence A. Barbour 
San Francisco THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. EH. A. Wicher 
SmirH CouuEcE, Prof. Irving F. Wood 

Syracuse University, Prof. Ismar Peritz 

Trinity CoLLecE, Prof. F. C. Babbitt 

Union THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. C. P. Fagnani 


AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH vil 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Prof. Wm. Popper 

University or Curcaao, Prof. J. H. Breasted 

Universiry oF MicHican, Prof. Leroy Waterman 
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Prof. James A. Montgomery 
UNIVERSITY OF THE SouTH, oe 

University oF Toronto, President Robert A. Falconer 
VASSAR CoLLEGE, Prof. Wm. Bancroft Hill 

WELLESLEY CoLuecE, Prof. Eliza H. Kendrick 

WESTERN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY (Pittsburgh), President Jas. A. Kelso 
XENIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Prof. M. G. Kyle 

YauLe University, Prof. Chas. C. Torrey 





The President of the Archaeological Institute, ex officio 
Pror. WARREN J. MouuTon, representing Society of Biblical Literature 
Mr. Witrrep H. ScHorr, representing American Oriental Society 


HONORARY MEMBER 


Mrs. Morris Jastrow, Philadelphia 


LIFE MEMBERS 


Miss Juurana Woop, Rev. Pror. Herman HK. Heuser, 
Philadelphia ae Overbrook Seminary 


PATRONS 


Pror. JAMES R. JEWETT, Mr. Louis MAarsHALi, 
Harvard University New York 

Mr. Jacos Lit, Mrs. CAROLINE WALTER, 
Philadelphia San Francisco 

Mrs. JOHN MARKOB, Mr. J. V. DirTeMmore, 
Philadelphia Boston 

Mr. Loomis BuRRELL, Mr. AuLEN A. BEAUCHAMP, 
Tattle Falls, N. Y. Boston ; 

Mr. Junius RosENWALD, Mr. CHarLes W. McALPIN, 
Chicago, fll. New York 

Mrs. Mary BrecHer LONGYEAR, Dr. THomas G. ASHTON, 


Brookline, Mass. Philadelphia 


vill AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH 


STAFF OF THE SCHOOL IN JERUSALEM 
1922-23 
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Ph.D., Director 
W. 4H. P. Harton, Ph.D., D.D., Annual Professor 
J. A. Bewrer, Ph.D., Th.D., Lecturer 
James A. Kengo, Ph.D., D.D., Lecturer 
Dana C. Munro, Ph.D., Lecturer 
Epwin E. Vorer, M.A. (Yale University), Thayer Fellow 


STAFF OF THE SCHOOL IN BAGDAD 
1922-23 
GrorcE A. Barton, Ph.D., LL.D., Director 


FIELD SECRETARY 


Pror. Mary I. Hussey, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Mass. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


(Se eTeRe ee). a ING oile and Its) PMVITONS. 1.6. oem sds soe ane che wees 1 
A eer CAmauone ate ibe Sites ans she) PEA ab acs Pac oes 3 
Pie mesosuits or the Hxeavatious 2.64 veew sek». os of es é 
1.—The First Period (Thirteenth and Twelfth Cen- 
PAE he gM Su AER. (goers sO ig ans Fo ee as eel 
2.—The Second Period (Eleventh Century B. C.)..... 8 
3.—The Third Period (Ninth to Seventh Centuries 
ee ere Ome Chae Sir ere ee EL ae a aes 17 
ee OSE OUTLeriOG..., s iss seco cumin cee es: ate tas a eee 25 
IV. Identification of the Site with Gibeah................ 28 
Neem CliscOry ot Gived 1rOM All MOUTCES. 2c. 2 we. cc ee ee 44 
APPENDIX eee ICT CHI SCOT OU MME oh. os rales le vontrsee’s < oe eV Ss eas 90 
iter ASL ONTO tae, oie sayin © eae ecole aaa tka y « 112 
Pe DUP OR AI oP PAU hector Oey close o te odie a. Winn whe 124 
TV.—The Assyrian March on Jerusalem, Isa. X, 28-32.... 134 
VEST nit Beth-nven Suen 1 eee nick Tres 141 
VI.—tThe Northern Boundary of Benjamin...... ae 150 
etree LETRO LITT) INAV OL. Weare Shee ses werden Soon ik aoa S 156 


Sriii a aetnany inthe: Old: Testametites g..4 aioe is wx nee ol 158 





aA i F 7 
mas 


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 


Beth-shemesh = MAcKeEnzin, Excavations at Ain Shems (Palestine Explora- 
tion Fund Annual, Vol. IT), 1913. 


Bulletin BCA = Bulletin of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 
Canaan = VincENT, Canaan d’apres l’exploration récente, Paris, 1907. 
Excavations = Buiss-Macauister, Excavations in Palestine, London, 1902. 
G = Greek text of LXX. 

GB = GrsEnrus-BuHL, Worterbuch der hebriiischen Sprache. 

Gezer = Macauister, The Excavation of Gezer, London, 1912. 

JBL = Journal of Biblical Interature. 

JEA = Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 

Jericho = SELLIN and Watzincsr, Jericho, Leipzig, 1913. 

JPOS = Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society. 

JSOR = Journal of the Society of Oriental Research. 

_M = Masoretic text of the Old Testament. 

Megiddo = ScHumacnueER, Tell el-Mutesellim, Leipzig, 1908. 

MNDPV = Mitteilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen Palistina Vereins. 
PEF QS = Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statements. 

PJB = Palastinajahrbuch. 

RB = Revue Biblique. 

SG = Sven Lrnper, Sauls Gibea, Uppsala, 1922. 

Taanach = Seuuin, Tell Ta’annek, Vienna, 1904. 

ZATW = Zettschrift fiir Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 

ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft. 

ZDPV = Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina Vereins. 


TABLE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERIODS EMPLOYED 


Bronze Age (Canaanite). Iron Age (Palestinian). 
Early Bronze, to 2000 B. C. First Phase, 1200-900 B. C. 
Middle Bronze, 2000-1600 B. C. Second Phase, 900-600 B. C. 
Late Bronze, 1600-1200 B. C. Third Phase, 600-300 B. C. 
Hellenistic, 300-100 B. C. 


Hell.—Roman, B. C. 100-100 A. D. 


tS Eye 
win tes: 








a i 
; cae hig 
ee a ae |e 


with 





PREFATORY STATEMENT 


This study is divided into two parts, the first archaeological and the 
second topographical. For convenience of reference I have grouped the 
topographical discussions in appendices, which have, however, grown to 
such dimensions that the term is not altogether happy. The loss of balance 
which has resulted does not affect the clarity of treatment, so that it is not 
wholly a disadvantage. 

In the archaeological section I have taken great pains to give an exhaus- 
tive treatment of the ceramic material from the first three periods of the 
history of the site. The drawings make up in accuracy, I trust, what they 
may lack in elegance. The importance of our study largely lies in the fact 
that it is here possible to date Israelite and Jewish ceramic types definitely, 
thus eliminating much of the indefiniteness which has hitherto prevented 
the archaeologist from evaluating his finds from a historical point of view. 
The sharp distinction between the pottery of the period 1200 to 900 B.C. 
(or-a little earlier) and the following period from before 900 to after 
‘700 B. C. will make possible a much sharper cleavage in the mass of material 
hitherto vaguely assigned to the whole period, or ascribed, sometimes to 
‘*Pre-Israelite’’ and ‘‘Jewish,’’ sometimes roughly to ‘‘Third Semitic’’ - 
(1400-1000 B. C.) and ‘‘ Fourth Semitic’’ (1000-550 B. C.). 

The full topographical discussions will, I hope, bring new methods and 
new material to bear on many knotty problems, and will play their réle in 
establishing -the tepography of Central Palestine on a scientific basis. 
Among the new identifications proposed are Beeroth = Tell en-Nasbeh, 
Jeshanah = Burj el-Isaneh, Ephraim = Samieh, and Ananiah = Bethany. 

Before proceeding I wish to express my profound indebtedness to two 
men, the foremost exponents of Palestinian science. Professor DALMAN 
- suggested the importance of excavations at Tell el-FGl to me in the first 
place; I also owe to his lengthy discussions in the Paldstinajahrbuch a 
knowledge of the topographic method developed by the German school. 
Pére VINCENT, the first living authority on Palestinian archaeology, has 
placed me under a debt of gratitude which I cannot easily repay. Twice 
he visited our work, and on numerous other occasions he has given infor- 
mation and advice of the greatest value. It is a great pleasure to thank 
him once again for his unfailing kindness. 





' ie oe * : 
it De the maior 
ai Wie 


" | site 


vw) ti 


lhe 
rt 





wt 
. eas aes. 








I, THE SITE AND ITS ENVIRONS 


Tell el-FGl is a hill standing five kilometers (about three miles) north of 
the Damascus Gate at Jerusalem, immediately overlooking the Nablus road. 
As will be seen from fig. 1, with which the cover illustration of Bulletin 
No. 6 and SG, figs. 15 ff. may be compared, it is a rather isolated hill, rising 
in terraces. The name tell, i. e., ‘“mound,’’ was probably given it from the 
mound-like appearance of the topmost terrace, though there are no traces of 
fortification around its edges. Tell el-F'tl means ‘‘Mound of Beans,’’ or 
rather “‘Mound of Horse-beans’’ (ful; fileh is nomen unitatis), a name 
given the hill because its marly soil was supposed to be specially suited for 
the cultivation of this coarse variety of bean. Many mounds and ruins are 
similarly called after plants or vegetables which flourished on them ; ef. Hirbet 
el-‘ Adaseh, ‘‘Lentile-ruin’’ just northeast of Tell el-Fil. The name Tuleil 
el-Ful, ‘‘Little Mound of Beans,’’ is erroneous, and seems to have been 
coined by peasants in order to give Europeans a name for the tumulus 
(rujm) in the middle of the upper terrace. At all events, I never heard it 
spontaneously used, though it was always recognized as a possible alterna- 
tive for Tell el-Ful. A recent variant, heard from one of my men, is Tell 
Lut, the spelling of which is rendered certain by the man’s comparing the 
name with Bahr Lit (the Dead Sea). This name is naturally apocryphal, 
and obviously originated in a misunderstanding of some learned traveler’s 
statement that Talat (Saul) dwelt here; Talut happens to be a biblical 
worthy quite unknown among the local peasantry. This is a characteristic 
example of the modern topographical legend, which has proved a constant 
source of error to western scholars from CLERMONT-GANNEAU down. 

The top.of Tell el-FUl is formed of a thick stratum of calcareous marl, 
ealled hiwar, i.e., hawar = hwérah in northern Palestine and Syria (from 
hwr, ‘‘be white’’), representing the latest period of limestone deposit in 
Palestine. The huwar is not suitable for grain, as shown by the wretched 
crops of barley or wheat grown on the hill every other year, nor is it good 
for deciduous trees, to Judge from experiments on similar soil elsewhere, but 
conifers seem to grow well on it; the huwar of Ras Abi: Halawi (the next 
hill northeast of Scopus) produces an excellent crop of conifers, and conif- 
erous trees were used for the woodwork of the first fortress of Gibeah 
(see below). 

Tell el-Ffil attains the respectable elevation of 2,754 feet, according to 
the results of the Survey of Western Palestine, and possesses a remarkably 
fine view in all directions, though on the north it is limited by the still 
higher ridge of Ramallah, westward, and Tell ‘Astir, eastward. Owing to 


2 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOUL) 


its height, the temperature on it is seldom oppressively warm, though it can 
be bitterly cold in winter. <A strong west wind blows practically every day 
from the middle of the morning on. 

The hill rises rather abruptly on the north and west, with a more gradual 
slope on the south; on the east it is connected by a narrow neck with the 
hill of Ras I‘mar. On the south it is separated from Hirbet es-Sdma‘ by a 
rather deep valley, called Wadi Abti Z(u)reiq, which continues westward 
toward ‘Anata, bemg called in succession Wadi Halaf, Wadi Ibn ‘Id, and 
Wadi ‘Anata. Between Tell el-Fal and Ras I‘mar, the little valley Si‘b 
et-Tugrah runs southward into the Wadi Halaf. On the north, Tell el-Fal 
is separated from the ridge of mizzi stone in which its cisterns were dug by 
the broad, low-lying field called Mer) el-Qonbar, which gradually deepens 
as one goes east, becoming first the Karm (Si‘b, Hallet) Abii Riseh, which 
lies northeast of Tell el-FUl, separating it from the ridge on which Hirbet 
el-‘Adaseh lies. Karm Abti RiSeh widens out into Wadi M(u)-jelleh as it 
runs eastward toward Hizmeh, near which it is called Wadi Zimri, an 
obviously ancient name. Just west of Tell el-F'Gl runs the watershed, along » 
the ridge of which winds the Nablus road. West of the watershed ridge, 
but still only a few minutes from the foot of Tell el-FUl, rise several small 
valleys, running westward to empty into the Wadi Beit Hannina. To the 
southwest is the Si‘b et-Tuffah, and north of this the Si‘b Sihadeh. For 
additional details ef. the elaborate description in SG, pp. 184 ff.; LinpER 
employs in part a different terminology, current with his informant from 
Sa‘ fat. 


II. EXCAVATIONS AT THE SITE 


Curiously enough Tell el-FGl was one of the very first sites excavated in 
Palestine. While WARREN was engaged in his epoch-making researches and 
excavations in Jerusalem, he paid a number of visits to interesting points in 
the vicinity, where soundings were made, though in those days the crude 
walls and pottery found meant nothing, and the results attained were 
accordingly considered as valueless. In the course of his investigations he 
sent a squad of laborers to dig for a fortnight in the ruins of the fortress 
on Tell el-Fil (May, 1868). Since he evidently did not regard the results 
as worth publication, he did not prosecute his operations long enough to do 
any serious damage. To judge from our subsequent work, his men dug 
trenches on the north and south sides, sinking a small pit on the summit, 
but without penetrating more than three meters into the little mound, or 
reaching the remains of the third fortress. 

A characteristic legend still circulates among the fellahin of Beit Hannina. 
An old peasant related that he heard in his boyhood that WarrEen’s men 
dug down until they reached a slab or paving-stone (baldtah), white and 
shining, whereupon work was suspended. The invariable sequel to such 
stories is that the hawdjah came during the night and removed the treasure 
hidden under the stone. At least, this is the usual ending, though it was 
for some reason not communicated to me. The same motive of buried 
treasure is still the excavator’s bane. .During our work at Tell el-Fual a 
Maghrabi (Maghrebine wizard) told the people of Beit Hannina that we 
would find a great treasure. Since it was never seen, the ignorant villagers 
doubtless believe that we removed it secretly in the night. 

Descriptions of the fortress which had been partially exposed by WarREN 
were given by Gu&érIN' and Conver, in the Survey of Western Palestine.* 
The latter also gives a plan, though the measurements are inexact, and the 
chambers in the top correspond but vaguely to our results. CoNDER some- 


2 Description de la Palestine, Samarie, Vol. I, pp. 188-9. 

2Vol. III, pp. 158-160. ConpER’s description reads as follows: 

‘¢The place has been excavated, and proves to be artificial; a building 30 feet high, 
measuring 50 feet east and west, by 46 feet north and south at the top, the walls being 
sheer, and a cross wall running through the middle east and west. The building is not 
rectangular. There appear to have been two chambers in the top, each 10 feet by 6 feet, 
and 9 feet deep. 

“*On the north and south there are two longer outer walls, which have a sloping outer 
revetement. The monument measures therefore 71 feet north and south at the bottom, 


4 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOUL) 


how got the idea that the masonry was of the Crusading type, an error 
which has been perpetuated ever since, despite the fact that it is in reality 
very different from all known examples of this class. In the days of the 
Survey, when the distinguishing characteristics of Crusading work had 
never been pointed out clearly, there was a distinct tendency to label every 
ruined fortress of obscure origin as ‘‘Crusading.’’ Now, thanks largely to 
the researches of the late M. CLERMONT-GANNEAU, we are in an entirely 
different position, and there is little excuse for such a mistake. As a matter 
of fact, Pére Vincent emancipated himself from the error of considering 
our fortress as mediaeval in date, long before the war, being led by the 
similarity in appearance between the revetment and the glacis of Jericho 
and Gezer. 

The suggestion that Tell el-FGl would be an unusually good place for 
small-scale excavations came to the writer from Professor DAaLMAN, who 
was in Jerusalem for some months of 1921. It is a pleasure to acknowledge 
this and other similar obligations to the great master of Paldstinakunde. 
The proposal to dig at this site was favorably received by the Trustees of 
the School, who placed at our disposal one thousand dollars, generously 
given by Miss JuutaNnA Woop, of Philadelphia. An additional hundred 
dollars was later given us, in order to complete the work. In view of the 
relative importance of the results, this amount is small, though considerable 
when judged by pre-war standards, since wages are now three times what 
they were then. On the other hand, it was then so hard to get an Ottoman 
firman, or permit for excavations, that it was not worth while to propose 
digging a small site. Now the government permit may be secured by 
responsible applicants in a week or two. 

Negotiations with the owners of the site proved extremely difficult in our 
case, since the flat summit of the hill is not divided into distinct properties, 
but is held on the share-holding plan, as often in the hills of Palestine. Our 
site was thus owned jointly by sixty-six shareholders, belonging mostly to 
the villages of Beit Hannina, but also scattered in Sa‘ fat and Ramallah. 
Moreover, a share may belong to several families, in which case they are 
represented by an agent, or wakil. Since these agents often claim the 
actual ownership, and the most honest fellah seems to have a blind spot 
wherever land dealings are concerned, the complexity of such negotiations 
is evident. We decided to cut the Gordian knot, however, at the suggestion 


but on the east and west there are no outer walls. Possibly flights. of steps may have 
led up on these sides. (!) The slope of the revetement is about 60°. 

The whole of the walls, which are 7 or 8 feet thick, and 15 feet high, including revete- 
ment, are composed of stones of good size, rudely hewn and undressed. The joints are 
packed with smaller stones. Some of the corner stones are squared. The stones on the 
scarp are slanted, so as to form the sloping face. The masonry resembles some of that 
used by the Crusaders. The face stones are set in mortar.’’ 


EXCAVATIONS AT THE SITE 5 


of our old friend and business adviser, Mr. Greuat, by proceeding to dig 
with Sa‘fat laborers soon after having received the official permission. 
Naturally, an angry deputation from Beit Hannina appeared on the scene 
before the end of the first day. It was naturally quite within its rights, so , 
we gladly discharged our lazy Sa‘fat men and hired laborers from Beit 
Hannina, promising to arrange the rental of the site later. 

It is not worth while describing the interminable negotiations with the 
owners, who at first demanded as much as four hundred pounds Egyptian 
for the rental of the desired two acres of wretchedly poor land around the 
fortress. A small group of owners, headed by Mohammed ‘Abd el-Haqaq, 
whom I made ‘‘foreman,’’ supported me; the rest caused endless trouble, 
being unwilling to come to any agreement among themselves or with me. 
After stopping the work once or twice, they finally secured a well-known 
shyster lawyer of Jerusalem and brought action against me—this after they 
had, all but one, met with me in the office of the district officer, ROmi Bey, 
and agreed as to the terms. The case was duly tried; I was acquitted of 
the various formidable charges against me, and immediately resumed work. 
This was-only the beginning of the schemes which fertile fellah brains 
hatched in order to get something for nothing, but the government appointed 
appraisers, and fixed the rental of the hill-top beyond dispute, at seven 
pounds Egyptian. In short, the negotiations took considerably more time 
than the excavations themselves, and I only escaped being forced to pay 
heavy bakhshish by showing myself quite as willing to prolong the parleying 
as any fellah. In the long run I suspect that this method saved time as well 
as money. . 

In March, 1922, we dug six days, beginning with five trenches on the hill- 
top, running radially from the fortress as the center and shifting in a few 
days to the fortress itself. The depth of débris on the summit of the hill, 
around the base of the fortress, proved small, averaging half a meter to a 
meter. The village on the summit was mostly post-exilic and Hellenistic, 
as will be shown in the next section. The finds consisted almost exclusively 
of late potsherds, with only fragments of house walls, and several grain-pits. 
In the top of the tumulus we sank a pit through the foundations of the 
fourth fortress into the third, which Pére VINCENT was able to assign to the 
pre-exilie period, on the basis of the masonry. During these few days, the 
writer enjoyed the assistance of Professor HinKE and Mr. W. E. Stapuss, 
our Fellow. . 

Work was resumed July 27 and continued, with unavoidable interrup- 
tions, to Sept. 2. The clearing of the fortress was continued. Several 
trenches were dug around the outside of the glacis, and the top strata of 
the fortress itself were removed. The fourth stratum was cleared off before 
the end of July, and I devoted the first part of August to removing the 


6 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


débris of the third period. Sherds of the second stratum began to appear 
Aug. 9. Toward the end of the month traces of the first fortress began 
to appear under the foundations of the second. The discovery of the first 
fortress, with a layer of ashes over its foundations, was a surprise, since 
we had up to then assumed that there were only three strata represented 
in our little mound. 

During the summer the number of men and boys employed varied from 
forty to fifty, which was all that could be accommodated on the scene of 
operations at once. The character of their work improved steadily as they 
became more used to it, and more convinced of its seriousness. An occa- 
sional discharge helped considerably. All these laborers came from Beit 
Hannina, a village of about a thousand souls, according to the recent census. 

Our work was resumed in the fall for four days, Nov. 7-10, and again in 
the spring, when we were interrupted by rain. The writer was then assisted 
by the Thayer Fellow, Mr. Epw1n Votat, as well as by the other members 
of the School. The excavations at this site were finally completed Aug. 28, 
1923, after a fortnight’s work, devoted to clearing up obscure points. All 
the walls which seemed to be sufficiently solid were left standing, so there 
will doubtless be gleanings at some future time, when these- walls have 
collapsed. They are not of sufficient importance to make it worth while 
consolidating them. The total number of working days devoted to the 
actual digging was forty, with an average force of about forty men and boys. 

In concluding this sketch of our operations, the writer would like to 
express his obligations to the members of the Department of Antiquities, 
especially Professor GArsTANG and Mr. Guy, who assisted in many ways, as 
well as to ROui Bey, who helped notably with the negotiations. But par- 
ticular thanks are due to Pére VINcENT, whose knowledge and experience 
were always at our service, and who visited the excavations twice, besides 
studying the potsherds and other finds. Both in regard to the dating of 
the pottery and the distinction of periods we are in entire agreement, though 
the writer is alone responsible for the conclusions derived from this material, 
which differ slightly in some respects from those proposed by Pére VINCENT 
in his account of the work in the Revue Biblique.* 


3Vol. XXXII, 1923, pp. 426-430. The first stratum belongs probably, as shown 
below, to the period of the Judges, rather than to the Canaanite age, as suggested by 
Pére VINCENT. Since our dates are the same, it is only a question of when the Israelites 
came into the country. The fourth stratum may now be assigned definitely to the 
Hellenistic age, and is hence Maccabaean, rather than vaguely post-exilic. 


Ill. THE RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS 


J. ‘Tue First PrEriop (THIRTEENTH AND TWELFTH CENTURIES B. C.) 


To the first period we assign the walls and other remains which underlie 
the burnt level, or are obviously older than the second stratum. Owing to 
the fact that the walls of the second period were not cleared away, it is not 
always easy to determine the relation between the various sections of 
foundation and wall ascribed to the first. Among other unsettled points we 
have that of the number of phases in the history of the first stratum. In 
the southern part of our fortress we have massive walls, following a rect- 
angular scheme which proves that they belong to a fortress. North of 
these walls, however, there are some foundations, also built on the huwar, 
which do not seem to belong to the same scheme, but need not be older, 
‘especially since there is no trace of later masonry of the first period 
overlying them. 

As will be seen from figs. 5 and 6, the masonry of the first period is in 
no sense distinctive, but resembles closely the rude masonry of the third ° 
and second millennia elsewhere in Palestine (e. g., the inner wall of Gezer, 
built-about 2500 B. C.—Gezer, Vol. I, p. 289, fig. 122). Fig. 5 (inside of 
the 2.15 meter thick west wall) belongs to an outside wall, and is conse- 
quently better masonry than fig. 6; inthe former there is an obvious effort 
to ensure solidity by fitting the stones together in polygonal fashion, depend- 
ing less upon smaller stones to fill the interstices. The stones employed in 
the first building are fairly large; 70x 30, 65x 45, 45 x 35 em. are repre- 
sentative measurements of their faces. Owing to their more massive char- 
acter, the walls of rooms A, C, and C, remained standing to the height of 
180 to 220 em., after the destruction of the first fortress; the weaker walls 
to the north were leveled to within a meter of the hiwar. 

The first fortress had two stories, as is shown by the layer of ashes repre- 
senting woodwork between its remains and the foundations of the second 
fortress. This layer appeared sharply at a height of 50 to 150 cm. from the 
huwar in BDEFGH, its thickness varying from 5 to 30 em. In AC,, it 
was replaced by scattered cinders between levels 0.50 and 2.50. Mr. JoHNn 
Drinsmort, the well-known botanist of the American Colony, kindly identi- 
fied specimens of the cinders from the burnt layer as cypress and pine. It 
is naturally very interesting to learn that there were coniferous forests— 
serub pine and eypress—in the vicinity of Gibeah about 1200 B. C., since 
these trees have been extinct for untold centuries in this part of the country, 


8 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


though recent decades of experience in Jerusalem prove that the soil and 
climate are admirably adapted to them. 

The pottery from the first fortress belongs to the same ceramic period as 
that from the second, from which it cannot be easily distinguished, so a full 
discussion of it will be reserved for the next section. The few potsherds 
which were found in situ below the burnt level were in general coarser, with 
more limestone particles, and were often indistinguishable from Bronze Age 
sherds. Such few rims, handles, and bottoms as appeared belonged to the 
Iron Age types, however. Not a single clear Bronze Age type appeared in 
-all our work on Tell el-Fal. It is, therefore, impossible to regard Gibeah I 
as a pre-Israelite stage of culture, and the ascription to the period of the 
Judges (for which see Chapters IV and V) seems certain. Our fortress 
was, accordingly, built toward the end of the thirteenth century B. C., and 
burned near the end of the twelfth. 


2. THe SEcoND PERIop (ELEVENTH CENTURY B. C.) 


The second fortress of Gibeah was by far the most elaborate and carefully 
constructed of all. The improvement in construction as compared with the 
first period is paralleled by the advance in the quality of the pottery. 
’ Painted pieces appear in some numbers, and good burnished ware occurs in 
quantities. We have, therefore, every reason to suppose that this fortress 
belonged to a clan or person of importance. In the following chapters its 
ascription to Saul, the first ‘‘king’’ of Israel, will be established, a result of 
great importance, as it enables us to date the objects found to the second 
half of the eleventh century, or even more exactly. 

Like the first fortress the building erected by Saul does not seem to have 
been a migdal in the strict sense of the term, as the third and fourth 
undoubtedly were. Since the accumulation of débris was very slight, and 
the massive staircase leading from the first to the second story rested on the 
burnt level, here only 115 em. from the huwar, there was obviously no place 
for an enveloping glacis, or, indeed, a revetment of any kind. The structure 
was defended only by an outer wall varying from 200 to 230 em. in width 
(i.e., 644 to 714 feet)—but the Philistines certainly brought no battering 
rams with them into the hills. In size the second fortress was probably 
larger than the surviving ruins would indicate, since walls of this period 
project under the glacis of the third period on the north and east. While 
the plan is extremely difficult to understand, it would seem that access to 
the building was obtained through the first story, probably by the long 
narrow hall (about a meter wide, on the average) designated as B. From 
B a door, or passage way, 85 cm. wide, opened at the foot of the staircase, 
which led upstairs (figs. 13, 14). 


THE RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS © a 


The stairease had only two steps, and the broken fragments of a third, left 
when found; the steps were a meter wide and 25 em. high, so the staircase 
was a little narrower and steeper than the typical modern stairs. For some 
reason or other, perhaps partial demolition at enemy hands (ef. Chapter 
V), the staircase collapsed, and the partial restoration which this entailed 
represents the second phase of the second period. The only clear traces of 
restoration are in DFG. Presumably because of haste or pressure from 
without, the builders made no attempt ta repair the stairway, but left part 
of the débris lying where it fell, and concealed it under a platform 230 em. 
wide and at least 190 em. high, evidently connecting with the upper story. 
The masonry between F and G also exhibits only one face, and so was 
probably a similar platform, around the bottom of which on south and east, 
perhaps also on the west, was left a narrow passage-way, a meter wide, 
designed either for storage or for communication. 

A most characteristic feature of the second fortress was the narrow 
apertures which allowed air and light to filter into the cellar rooms. Such 
apertures were found on the south and east of A, and in the northern wall 
of C, (figs. 10 and 12; plate XXIV, A). In the east wall of A there were 
four square apertures; in the south wall four more, partly square and 
partly triangular; in the north wall of C, there were two triangular 
apertures. Their dimensions are: width 20-25 em.; height 35-50 em. 

The masonry of the second fortress is distinctly better than that of the 
first, as may be seen on comparison of figs. 8, 11 (above), 12, with 5, 6, 
11 (below). Sometimes, of course, older material has been used, or there 
has been obvious restoration at a later period, but in general the stones 
have been hammered into rough oblong shape and laid in courses. In 
undisturbed sections of the wall, such as the southwestern section of the wall 
of A, the courses are very regular. The stones do not, however, average 
more than half the size of those used in the first period. Since the second 
fortress was not destroyed by fire, but only dismantled and abandoned, the 
walls stand to a relatively considerable height, reaching as much as 300 em. 
in the south wall of A, and 270 em. at D, by the stairease. 

In H a massive door socket, of meleki stone, was found, but it is not clear 
to what door it belonged—perhaps to the outer door of the fortress. This 
socket was unfortunately destroyed before it could be photographed ; meleki 
is valuable for the very reason that it was chosen for door sockets by the 
ancients—it is easily hewn and carved, not being so likely to split as nari 
or so brittle as mizztz. It may be added that mizz7 and nari are found in 
almost equal proportions in the masonry of the first fortress, while nari 
practically disappears in the second period. 

We may now turn to the pottery of this period, which is comparatively 
rich, and consequently very interesting. As stated above, we are unable 


10 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FCL) 


to make any distinction in types between the pottery of the first two periods, 
both of which belong to the same phase of ceramic culture. The pottery 
forms and decorations of the first and second periods are illustrated on 
plates XXV, XXVI, XXVIII, XXIX-XXXI. We will take up the plates 
in succession, comparing types carefully with those found in excavations 
elsewhere, especially at Gezer, Jericho, Beth-shemesh and Megiddo; the 
documentation is elsewhere too incomplete for our purposes. 

On plate XXV are illustrated types of cooking pot rims. This form of 
pot is found exclusively in the second period, and is extraordinarily homo- 
geneous. The ware is black or dark brown, burned red, dark red, and 
brown. The rims are always everted, and usually molded in more or less 
complicated profiles, pointed, carinated, or rilled (figs. 25-6). The bowl is 
carinated below the rim, and has no base, though the bottom is flattened a 
little, so that the vessel may stand. There are always two handles on this 
type of pot. Curiously enough, all the vessels of this kind found at Tell 
el-F'tl have the same dimensions. In thirty cases measured, not one varied 
from the rule of 23-26 em. inside diameter of rim. All are more or less 
smoked outside, indicating their function as cooking pots. A complete pot, 
restored from sherds, is illustrated in plate XXIV, 1. 

If now we compare this group of Gibeah II pottery with similar vessels 
found elsewhere in Palestine, we are immediately struck with the apparent 
paucity of the type in other sites. The reason for this is evidently that 
ordinary blackened cooking pots would not be used as tomb offerings or 
ex votos, but would be abandoned and smashed; their chances of escape 
from destruction were naturally very small. Though the number of entire 
specimens thus far found is insignificant, sherds belonging to them are very 
common, as will be noted presently. At Tell Zakariyeh and Tell es-Safi 
several entire pots were found (Excavations, plate 33, figs. 1-4), the largest 
of which (fig. 1) is identical with our Gibeah pots (diam. 23 em. inside 
rim). They were assigned by Briss to his ‘‘Pre-Israelite’’ period, defined 
by him as antedating the later monarchy, i.e., before 900 B.C. In the 
following Jewish period this type disappears and is replaced by a vase with 
similar handles, profiled or flanged rim, but with shape entirely altered by 
deepening of the body and narrowing of the mouth. This new form is 
represented Excavations, plate 54, figs. 1-3. Megiddo plate XXXVII ¢g 
and p. 101, fig. 155 (fifth stratum) are intermediate forms, belonging with 
the latter rather than with the former. The presence of our earlier type in 


1 There can be no doubt that this type of vessel originated in the characteristic Bronze 
Age bowl with turned over rim (of the same form as illustrated in plate XXXII, no. 1, 
from a vessel of much later date and entirely different shape), usually handleless. I 
have found at Megiddo, and elsewhere, in Late Bronze and Early Iron strata, sherds 
illustrating every phase of this transition, and all from cooking pots. 


THE RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS Yr 


northern Palestine is proved by PHyTHIAN-ApAmMs’ work at Tell ‘Amr in 
the Kishon Valley, where we have in the Early Iron Age ‘‘double-handed 
cooking pots of chocolate-coloured clay having a slight raised flange running 
round outside and under the rim’’ (Bulletin BCA, no. 2, p. 15). That it 
was also known at Megiddo is proved by potsherds picked up there by the 
writer. The sherds from MACKENZIE’s excavations at Beth-shemesh, pre- 
served in the National Museum, also include numerous examples, all from 
the second and third strata, i. e., from the period 1100-600 B.C. The total 
absence of mention of so characteristic a type in Gezer is probably an over- 
sight, due to the fact that no entire specimens of this early cooking pot were 
found. We may safely state, however, that it was used all over Palestine 
during the period from the twelfth to the tenth centuries. By the ninth 
century it had disappeared, *as proved by its total absence from Gibeah IIT 
and from Jericho (rebuilt by Hiel about 870 B. C.), where we have only the 
later deep-bodied and narrow-necked type (Jericho, plate 32, A, a-c).? 
Plate X XVI exhibits rims and profiles of hand-burnished saucers and 
bowls, all from the second period. Not a single certain example of wheel- 
burnished pottery was found in the second period, so this technique 
evidently came into Central Palestine during the tenth century. The ware 
of our saucers is very good, quite free from imperfections and foreign parti- 
cles; the clay is gray, drab, or black, burned to a buff, orange, red, or 
brown. The burnishing is irregular but semi-continuous, usually with 
parallel or cross strokes (cf. plate XXX, figs. 18-21), either on the original 
surface or on a red slip. It is quite impossible to confuse this technique 
with that practiced in the Middle Bronze Age, where we have a continuous 
polish on a rich, evenly applied red slip, or with the ring-burnishing of the 
next phase of the Early Iron Age, discussed in section III, below. In our 
period burnishing seems to be restricted to small bowls and saucers such as 
those under discussion, and to decanters, where it usually appears in a 
vertical sense. This type of burnishing clearly came in from the north, 
since it appears rather suddenly at the opening of the Iron Age, not having 


2It cannot be emphasized too often by the student of Palestinian archaeology that 
the periods at Jericho were badly postdated by SELLIN and WarzincerR; ef. JPOS I, 
133 f. The fourth stratum, considered as Israelite by these scholars, is in reality Middle 
Bronze and early Late Bronze, and must be dated about 1700-1500 (not 1700-1230 as I 
suggested, since this city did not have a long duration, and Late Bronze pottery is very 
rare). From about 1500 to the eleventh century the site was certainly unoccupied, as 
attested by definite biblical tradition, and the first Israelite town on the mound goes 
back only to the time of Ahab (I Kings 16,,). The fifth (early Jewish) stratum must 
therefore be dated about (1000)-870-600 B. C., and the sixth about 500-200. If these 
changes in the dating are made, the use of Jericho becomes easy—the more important 
since it is in many respects the best publication of the results of Palestinian excavation 
yet issued. 


12 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


been known in the preceding Late Bronze Age. This fact, not understood 
by previous writers, has been convincingly established by PHyTHiAn-ADAMs’ 
researches on the pottery of Ashkelon.* 

Our saucers are all thin and light, with rim diameters of from 16.5 to 
23 cm. Nos. 1-10 have red burnishing, generally on the natural clay sur- 
face, which has become red from the firing, except for nos. 4 and 9, which 
have ared slip. Nos. 11-22 are in various shades of buff, orange, and brown, 
mostly with similar burnishing. Nos. 15 and 17 are not burnished, but are 
covered with a red slip put on in irregular strokes, which often expose the.. 
natural buff surface. The effect is that of alternating strips of light red, 
orange and buff, somewhat similar to the technique of this type which was 
so common about 2000 B.C. (end of the Early Bronze and beginning of 
the Middle Bronze), but obviously more sporadic. Nos. 23-6 are not bur- 
nished at all, and already show a tendency to develop into the forms of 
the third period figured in plate XXVII. The last three numbers, 27-9,’ 
belong to the third period and will be discussed there. The first two are 
characteristic saucer shapes of the third period, while the last is a beauti- 
fully wheel-burnished piece, the only one found in the third stratum which 
exhibits a continuous burnished surface, with each ring clearly defined and 
distinct instead of a maze of intersecting strokes, as in the technique of the 
second period. 

The type in question has not been characterized adequately by previous 
writers, so it is impossible to identify it certainly with forms described by 
MACALISTER (especially of the Third Semitic, Gezer, Il, pp. 182-3; Fourth 
Semitic, pp. 200-1). The red burnished saucer is quite common among the 
Beth-shemesh sherds of the second and third strata preserved in the 
museum. It also appears at about the same period among the sherds from 
Ashkelon, where it is relatively less common. Our Gibeah material proves 
that it is another characteristic type of the first phase of the Early Iron Age. 

The rims of plate XXVIII belong to jugs of the first and second periods, 
mainly second, as already observed. There is no uniformity in either the 
profiles of the rims or in the sizes; the smaller jugs (figs. 1-16) vary from 
7.5 to 11.5 em. in diameter of the rim, while the larger ones (figs. 17-24) 
vary from 16 to 20 em. The most common color is buff (nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 
12-13, 17-19, 21-23); nos. 2 (outside), 5 (both sides), 11 and 14 (outside) 
have a white slip with a greenish tinge over the buff surface. Nos. 4, 7, 9, 
10, 15, 16, 20 are reddish in color (light red to brown). No. 24 has five 
small round holes punctured in the outside rim, probably for ornament. 
It is curious that no jugs of these types were found in the third stratum, 


®*See PEFQS 1923, p. 72. At Tantirah (Dor) I understand that precisely similar 
results were secured. 


THE RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS 3653 


where one would have expected some reminiscence of them; their absence 
may be due to sheer accident, or to the conditions of life in the migdal of the 
third period, which was no longer a house as well as a fortress. 

Plate X XIX introduces us to the types of bases found in the first three 
strata. Nos. 1-14 belong to the first two strata; seven are ring-bases and 
seven dise-bases, though there may be doubt as to whether no. 13 should be 
classified as dise or flat base. The proportion of dise-bases in the first two 
levels is therefore exactly one-half, barring accidents of preservation or 
discovery. In the third period it will be found that the proportion of 
dise-bases has fallen to twenty per cent. MAcALISTER’s observation regard- 
ing the frequency of disc-bases as compared to ring-bases in the Fourth 
Semitic is thus abundantly confirmed: ‘‘At the beginning of the period 
hollow or flat dise bases seem to be more common, in proportion to ring- 
bases, than they are at the end. The latter, indeed (of course excepting in 
the large number of vessels with convex bottoms), become almost universal 
as we approach the Persian Period.’’ 

No. 1, of the first period, is of a dark clay mixed with coarse particles of 
_silex and limestone, burned buff on the outside. No. 2 is of similar, but 
better cleaned ware, covered with an orange-red slip, unevenly smeared on 
with a brush, as in the cases described above, in plate XXVI, nos. 15, 17 
(saucers). On the outside the brush was held to the surface as the wheel 
was being turned, so we have concentric streaks in a horizontal sense, streaks 
of orange alternating with yellow and buff. No. 3 is ight red with vertical 
lines of burnishing on the outside. No. 4 belongs to a bowl, the inside of 
which was covered with a thick slip of greenish white, continuously bur- 
nished with strokes in all directions. No. 5 is a drab clay burned on the 
outside to a dark reddish brown, lightly polished on both sides. No. 6 has 
been burned to a reddish color, with lines of burnishing more pronounced 
than in the preceding instance. No. 7 is a cup, or more exactly a saucer 
on a raised hollow base, of a drab clay with minute limestone particles, 
covered on the outside with a streaky white slip. The type is described by 
MACALISTER as ‘‘saucer on trumpet-shaped foot,’’ and is common in the 
Fourth Semitic (Gezer, II, p. 201). The numerous examples found in tomb 
96 (Gezer, III, plates XC-XCI) belong to the very beginning of the Iron 
Age. This is another example of the confusion resulting from dating the 
‘Fourth Semitic’’ from 1000 on, whereas the characteristic early Fourth 
Semitic types given by MacauisterR really belong to the first phase of the 
Iron Age (1200-900 B.C.). Nos. 8-14 are all dise-bases: 11 is an excep- 
tionally high base, belonging perhaps to a cup, of drab clay, burnt to a light 
red on the outside and continuously polished; 14 is a dull red, burnished 
on the outside with strokes in various directions. 

When we come to handles (plate XXX) we find again a sharp distinction 


14 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


between Gibeah I-II and III. In the earlier period the loop handles (no. 
6) are all smooth, with a more or less,perfect oval section, while in the later 
period they are nearly all ribbed. In general all loop handles of the Bronze 
Age are smooth, and this characteristic was retained in the first phase of 
the Iron Age, a very important datum for distinguishing pottery of this 
period from that of the second phase. No. 7 is a double handle, but of a 
hard, mechanical type that has nothing in common with the double handles 
of the Middle Bronze Age, which are of Nubian or Egyptian origin, 
belonging rather with the double handles of the Early Iron Age in 1 Cyprus 
(Cypro-Phoenician). 

Several specimens of horizontal bar handles (six in all) from the Hite 
two periods were found, two of which are illustrated in figs. 15-16. All are 
from bowls continuously or semi-continuously .burnished in the technique 
characteristic of the first two periods. The handle may be described as a 
semi-cylindrical bar of clay, adhering to the surface, and running around 
the vase just below the rim, with conical, spatulate, or nail-head expansions 
at the ends. The type is described by MAcALIsTER under the head of Fourth 
Semitic (Gezer, II, 206), and illustrated in Gezer, III, plate CLXXIV, 18; 
CLXXI, 8. The diameter of the second bowl described in Gezer is 22 em 
while those of our bowls are, respectively, 32, 28, 26, 20, 10; there is, 
accordingly, no uniformity of size in the vessels bearing horizontal bar. 
handles. <A similar handle is also figured in Jericho, p. 140, no. 55, from 
- Hielite Jericho, indicating that its absence from Gibeah III may be sheer 
accident. While the origin of this style of handle is quite unknown, it is 
decidedly characteristic of the first phase of the Early Iron Age, probably 
dying out early in the second phase. 

Only two examples of ear handles were found, both from the period in 
question, and both belonging to juglets, one black, and the other a coarse 
buff; ef. Gezer, II, 206, middle of page. 

Horizontal loop handles are entirely lacking, one of the indications of 
the non-penetration of Philistine culture into the central highlands of 
Palestine (see below). 

Several fragments of polished black juglets were found, as well as one 
almost complete (plate XX XII, fig. 23). All come from the second stratum. 
While there can be no doubt about the relative frequency of the polished 
black juglet during the second period of Gibeah, it may have continued in 
use during the third period. There is a curious-difference of opinion on 
the subject between MacanisteER and Mackenzig. While the former 
(Gezer II, 198 f.) believes that this juglet extends down the whole length * 
of the Fourth Semitic to the Hellenistic age, the latter (Beth-shemesh, 
p. 67) maintains that the polished black juglet seems to be on the point of 
vanishing just when the water decanter was coming into fashion. His 


THE RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS 15 


evidence for this conclusion is principally that the juglet is very common 
in tomb 1 and the repository of tomb 2, but is missing in tomb 2 proper and 
later tombs, where the water decanter is common or even ubiquitous; in 
other words, it is common at Beth-shemesh during the first phase of the 
Iron Age, but disappears in the second phase. Our results agree rather 
with MACKENZIn’s than with MAcALIsTER’s but it seems likely that the truth 
lies between the two extreme views, since black polished juglets are not 
uncommon in Hielite Jericho (Jericho, p. 143), and hence were in use down 
into the ninth century, if not into the eighth. It remains, however, true 
that the black juglet precedes the water decanter, in general (cf. next 
section), and MAcALISTER’s supposition that the juglet survives in post-exilic 
times cannot be correct. 

Turning now to the painted pottery of the first two periods, most of 
which certainly belongs to the second, as illustrated on plate XXXI, we 
find the almost exclusive.dominance of bands or tings of color. Only sherd 
no. 7 is an exception to this rule, but its fine reddish buff paste with a cream 
slip on the outside, on which bands and lozenges are painted in black, points 
unmistakably to importation. Lozenges are not uncommon in Early Iron 
Age pottery of Palestine and Syria,* but I do not know of any exact parallel 
to this piece. In the other cases we find four different techniques in use: 
(1) the bands of color are put on the natural surface of the clay, unbur- 
nished (nos. 2, 3); (2) the surface is burnished in a vertical sense (nos. 9, 
10, 11, all from jugs); (3) a red slip is put on and burnished vertically 
(no. 3); (4) the bands are painted over a white, cream, or creamy buff slip 
(064150,30)'.1. ; 

Similarly decorated wares, all from the beginning of the Iron Age, have 
been found all over Palestine, both south, central and north, but the closest 
parallels come from Jericho. On jugs, amphoras, water-decanters, ete., 
from Hielite Jericho numerous examples of band decoration appear; see 
Jericho, pp. 141 ff. Three of our varieties reappear: vases with bands 
painted over a polished surface, with a red slip, and with bands painted 
on the natural surface (matt). The fourth class mentioned above seems, 
however, to have disappeared before the ninth century. The favorite colors 
employed are still lilac and red in the Jericho pottery. The fact that this 
class of pottery survives down into the second phase of the Early Iron Age 
is corroborated by its appearance all through the Fourth Semitic of Gezer 
(Gezer, II, p. 208), as well as all sites of a similar age yet excavated in 


*ZLozenges are quite common in ‘‘Third Semitic’’ decoration; ef. MAcALISTER, 
Gezer, III, plate CLX, 2; CLXVII, 13b, both barred or fretted. The closest parallel 
comes from Sakje-gozii (Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, Vol. I, plate XLVILII, 
1), where we have barred lozenges in black on a buff grey clay, also, according to Pro- 
fessor GARSTANG, from the Early Iron Age. 


16 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


Palestine. One would, however, be glad of definite proof that the stratum 
of Jericho we have termed ‘‘ Hielite’’ really is all later than the beginning 
of the ninth century, and not, as one cannot help at times suspecting, partly 
from the tenth and even the end of the eleventh. The ceramic evidence 
would best be satisfied by a date between 1000 and 700 B. C.® 
Recapitulating the results, we find that the pottery from Gibeah I and 
II belongs with the end of Butss’s Pre-Israelite and the beginning of 
MAcauistER’s Fourth Semitic; the more exact dating possible for the first 
and second periods at Gibeah enables us to assign more exact dates than has 
hitherto been possible, and thus marks a distinct step forward in the knowl- 
- edge of Early Iron Age pottery of the first phase. The most important 
differences between this pottery and that of the second phase will be 
described in more detail in the next section, dealing with the third period. 
Plate XX XIII illustrates various objects from the first and second levels, 
mainly, if not entirely, from the second. As elsewhere in Palestinian sites, 
numerous spinning whorls, made from potsherds averaging 1 em. in thick- 
ness, came to light; types, both perforated and unperforated, are repre- 
sented in figs. 1-4. Fig. 5 represents a dise of clay, again a rounded 


>We must not forget that while the second structure at Gibeah was a residence as 
well as a fortress, the third was purely a fortress, and would probably not boast such 
luxuries as painted pottery. There is therefore no irregularity in supposing that the 
type of painted pottery found in Gibeah II continued in use two or three centuries after 
the fall of the second fortress. . 

*‘ While this is not the place to enter into a discussion of the Philistine pottery and 
the problems raised by it, it may be observed that our ceramic finds at Gibeah provide 
an additional argument for the position of MackENzIE and PuyrHian-ADAMS, who 
maintain, as is well known, that a certain type of pottery, abundant in the mounds of 
the Shephelah and at Ashkelon, is peculiarly Philistine, and was not introduced until 
the Iron Age by the invading Philistine hordes. Their view has been vigorously 
opposed by no less an authority than VINCENT, while WooLLEy confuses the issue by 
mixing Late “Bronze Age and Early Iron Age types in the most hopeless way. At 
Ashkelon, however, PHyTHIAN-ADAMS found a sharp line of demarcation between the 
Late Bronze Age stratum and the next higher level containing pottery of the ‘‘ Philis- 
tine’’ type. At Beth-shemesh MACKENZIE found a gap between the period of importa- 
tion of Cypro-Phoenician and Aegean pottery (Late Bronze Age proper) and the period ~ 
during which ‘‘Philistine’’ pottery became prevalent, a gap which corresponds neatly 
to the interval between the Israelite conquest (cir. 1230 B. C.) and the growth of 
Phoenician influence in the Shephelah (cir. 1100 B. C.). Most important is the fact 
that no pottery of the type in question has been found anywhere in Northern Palestine, 
at Megiddo, Taanach, the mounds in the Plain of Accho, Bethshan, or Dor, where a 
new type of ceramics does, however, appear with the Sikel conquest. Now we can 
show that this pottery does not appear in Southern Palestine, except in Philistia itself 
and the Shephelah, which was unquestionably under immediate Philistine control during 
the eleventh century. There can be no doubt that the entire absence of Philistine ware 
from Saul’s fortress and residence proves a vigorous Israelite opposition to the intro- 
duction of Philistine influences. 


THE RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS 17 


potsherd, about 1 em. thick, the edges of which have been worn smooth by 
constant rubbing; it may be a whetstone. No. 6 is a flue (drawn in cross 
section) made of friable clay, full of white particles, present length 5 em. 
The clay is burned through to a brick-red color, except for the outside, 
which has a blackened coat about 2 mm. deep, and one end, which is black 
and partially charred. Another object of clay, conical in shape, with a 
diameter at the base of 10 em., and a blackened hole 5 em. deep in the base, 
is quite inexplicable. No. 7 is a rectangular potsherd which has been carved 
to represent something, but just what is not clear. One may choose 
between amulet and model of a game-board, but the writer inclines to the 
second supposition. No. 8 is obviously a piece used in some gamé, perhaps 
a draughtsman. It is formed from a burnished potsherd, 0.65 em. thick. 

Also from the second period are the bone serapers, of which one is repre- 
sented in fig. 9. Two bronze arrow-heads (fig. 12) also appeared in this 
level, besides quantities of sling-stones. An iron plough-tip found in room 
A reminds us that we are already well into the Iron Age, when iron began 
to be used for agricultural implements (cf. I Sam. 13,,-,, from the beginning 
of Saul’s reign). It has long been recognized generally that iron came into 
the country as a material for tools and implements with the Philistines, who 
held a monopoly of the supply of this metal, and possessed all the iron- 
smiths. No. 15 is a whetstone; the rest of the figures on this plate belong 
to later periods. 


3. THe THIRD PERtiop (NINTH TO SEVENTH CENTURIES B. C.) 


The third fortress on our site is quite different in plan and construction, 
since it served as military outpost and watch-tower (Heb. migdal), instead 
of being the acropolis (on a small scale) of a town. Im all probability 
Gibeah was unoccupied from the tenth century to the eighth (see Chapter 
V), since no pottery from the second phase of the Iron Age seems to be 
found on the northern and northeastern terraces where the town of Saul 
lay, and the oldest village remains from the summit date from the eighth 
or seventh centuries B. C., when the fortress was abandoned for the third 
time. 

The third fortress, with its quadrangular form and enveloping glacis, 
may be regarded as a typical Palestinian migdal of the Karly Iron Age. 
Typical Palestinian fortresses of the Late Bronze Age are represented on 
the Egyptian monuments of the Nineteenth Dynasty, especially the Karnak 
reliefs of Sethos I. While the ‘‘migdol’’ of Sethos figured, e.g., by V1v- 
CENT, Canaan, p. 84, fig. 56, after Masprro (= GarpIner, JEA VI, plate 
XII, P) actually represents a town (dmy) it is probable enough that it gives 
us a fair elevation of a typical migdal (or migdol if we follow the later 


18 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


Egyptian pronunciation). If we leave the citadels of walled cities hitherto 
studied out of consideration, because of the fact that they are planned to 
meet other contingencies, we find only one group of migdals which has been 
examined, though inadequately—the fortresses in the Negeb, knowledge of 
which we owe to WooLuEy and Lawrence (PEF Annual, III, pp. 41, 3). 
Just north of Ruheibeh, the ancient Rehoboth, is one such migdal, now 
called Qasr er-Ruheibeh, a quadrangular structure, roughly twenty meters 
square. The foundation walls only, of rough and undressed stone, are pre- 
served, and it is not clear from the tentative plan given whether there were 
two stories or only one. There does not, however, seem to have been a glacis. 
~ WoouuEy: has unfortunately gone far astray in dating the fortress by the 
pottery, ‘‘fine ring-burnished haematite stained ware,’’ which he wishes 
to assign to the Second Semitic, ostensibly following Macauister. Natu- 
rally, MAcALISTER nowhere dates such ware to the Second Semitic, since it 
is only found in the second phase of the Early Iron Age, between the tenth 
and the sixth centuries B. C., being precisely the ware that is characteristic 
of Gibeah III. Qasr er-Ruheibeh and probably also Bir Birein, judging © 
from the similar pottery found there, are migdals built at almost the same 
time as Gibeah ITI, in order to protect Jewish settlements and flocks in the 
Negeb from Bedawin raids. It is quite likely that these are among the very 
migdalim built by Uzziah in the southern desert of Judah, in order to pro- 
tect his flocks, as narrated II Chron. 26,,; in this case they would date from 
the first half of the eighth century B.C., or just when Gibeah III was 
restored, if my hypothesis (see Chapter V) is correct. The relatively 
greater strength of our fortress is, of course, due to its greater importance, 
since its function was to protect Jerusalem against surprise attacks, whence 
it had to be proof against surprises itself. 

When the Jewish builders of about 900 B.C. prepared to build, they 
found some four meters, on the average, of débris from previous construec- 
tions deposited on the site, with massive walls ready to serve as foundations. 
Hastily clearing the tops of the visible walls on the south and east, they 
built their own inner wall on them, as may be seen by comparison of the 
plans on plates XXII and XXIII with the photographs, figs. 7, 8, and 10. 
In the west they almost entirely missed the top of the massive wall of I-II, 
and on the northeast and north they found no convenient walls on which 
to build. As a result, width was substituted for solidity of foundation, a 
method which explains the curious difference in the width of different 
sections of the inner wall. Not satisfied, however, with assuming the solidity 
of the old south wall, they uncovered its external face down to about a 
meter from the huwar, and, having found that it sagged badly, they placed 
a massive buttress wall against it, to support the southeastern corner (cf. 
plan and figs. 19-20). For greater security, the glacis was not set against 


THE RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS 19 


the inner wall directly, but against a thin outer wall, the inside face of 
which was a little more than two meters from the outside face of the inner 
wall. The intervening space was not disturbed, except in the southeastern 
corner, where the buttress wall had been inserted, which we found packed 
with earth, above which was a filling of stone. The outer wall was less 
than a meter wide, on the average, and utilized such intersecting walls as 
were available from older periods to strengthen or replace it. Since the 
glacis was restored in the fourth period, when some alterations may have 
been made, our profiles (plate XXIV C-D) hold only for the fourth fortress, 
though they probably reproduce the elevation of the third with general 
accuracy. 

The glacis enveloped the fortress on all sides, not on the north and south 
alone, as WARREN seems to have thought (Survey of Western Palestine on 
Tell el-Fal). It is, however, true that it had been nearly all removed by 
subsequent builders on the west side. The entrance to the fortress (stair- 
case or ramp) probably was on the eastern side, where the ancient road to 
the summit of the hill followed the more gradual ascent on this side. We 
were unfortunately, however, not able to clear all the débris away from the 
eastern side, owing to our agreement with the owners and the exigencies 
of wind conditions, which forced us to pile the débris removed from the 
rest of the fortress over the glacis on the east. On the northern side the 
glacis was practically intact (see figs. 16 and 17). It was built on a founda- 
tion of larger stones, with a vertical outer face 60-70 em. high. Above this 
it rose obliquely for at least 460 cm. at an angle of about 60°; the measured 
angle of 57° is more exact than warranted by the irregular surface of the 
glacis. It is quite possible that the glacis of the third period was higher 
than it was in the fourth, when it reached a total height (measured along 
its surface) of 560 em. on this side. If it continued up to meet the outer 
wall, it must have been 650 em. in length, but ef. the discussion below. 

It is a pity that we lack sufficient illustrative material for our glacis from 
other sites. Since the revetments of the towns of the Shephelah, Megiddo, 
ete., are not adequately published, we must fall back on two parallels: the 
glacis of the city wall of Jericho in the Middle Bronze Age (Jericho, plates 
10-13) ,* and that of several of the ‘‘Solomonic’’ towers in the outer wall of 
Gezer (Gezer, I, p. 247, fig. 128).. The Jericho glacis, though nearly, if 
not quite a thousand years older than ours, is very similar, as pointed out 
to me by Pére VincENT. It has the same foundation of larger stones with 
a vertical outer face, the same rude laying of stones in courses; on the 
other hand, the stones are more irregular in size, the tendency to polyg- 


‘This glacis does not belong to the ‘‘Hielite’’ wall, as generally supposed; see 
note above. It would in any ease be a rather monstrous supposition to assume that a 
private person would be given the credit for the construction of such massive walls. 


20 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


onal work is unmistakable. Lest we be inclined by this comparison to 
antedate our revetment, against the other evidence, we may now compare 
the Gezer revetment. Since the towers of the outer wall of Gezer are 
probably Solomonic, as acutely pointed out by MacauistTEr (2bid., p. 255 f.), 
the revetments with which some of them are cased must be later. 
Macauister would attribute them to the Syrian general Bacchides, who 
made Gezer his base during the Maccabean wars. The fortification of 
Gazara by Bacchides is mentioned I Mace. 9,,, but may easily have consisted 
in repair of the acropolis, which MAcALISTER was unable to examine. At all 
events, in view of the extraordinary resemblance of the revetments’ in 
question to our glacis, we can hardly date them in the second century B. C., 
but much more probably during the Divided Kingdom, when Gezer was an 
important frontier city——For additional comparison, I have included a 
photograph of the glacis at Tell en-Nasbeh (Beeroth), probably from the 
Late Bronze Age (fig. 18). 

In general the construction of the third fortress is marked by obvious 
haste. While the stones employed were usually roughly hammer-dressed, 
the foundations were very carelessly laid, and the piers all collapsed sooner 
or later after we removed the earth from around their foundations. In this 
connection it was possible to make some very interesting observations, bear- 
ing upon the identification of the third fortress. The buttress wall at the 
southeastern corner, already mentioned, is built of large cubes of meleki 
stone, hewn smooth on one or more sides, but, curiously enough at first 
sight, the smooth side, instead of facing, is often turned inside. In other 
words, these well-hewn meleki blocks do not belong with our fortress at all, 
but have been brought from somewhere else. In the first two periods no 
meleki was employed; it is only in the third and fourth.that we find these 
reused blocks of this choice material. The meleki quarries are situated near 
Beit Hanninaé and er-Ram, and the stones were therefore dragged some 
distance in order to be used in the fortress at Gibeah. Another interesting 
point was that a relatively large number of beams were employed in the 
construction of our fortress, as shown by its thorough destruction by fire, 
which slivered and calcined the stones of the upper story, filling the central 
chambers of the basement with a mass of stone slivers, charred potsherds 
and cinders nearly two meters deep. Charred fragments of such beams 
were identified by Mr. Dinsmore as almond—the coniferous forest had thus 
apparently disappeared from the environs of Gibeah during the first three 
centuries of Israelite domination. The significance of these facts in con- 
nection with the biblical statement that Asa built a fortress here constructed 
partly of stones and beams carried away from Baasha’s fortress at Ramah 
is evident, and will be duly stressed in chapter IV. 

The characteristic form of construction in the interior of the third 


THE RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS 21 


fortress is the supporting pier of which four were found (A-D on the plan). 
Since these piers were erected on older walls which had remained standing 
at different heights, their height is quite different; B and C were originally 
at least 200 em. high, while A was only 75 em. When Pére VINCENT saw 
the masonry of B, the first pier uncovered, he called my attention to its 
characteristically pre-exilic type, as illustrated by masonry from the Jewish 
royal period found at Tell ej-Judeideh (which was inadequately published, 
and cannot be compared except by one who studied the remains before they 
were removed or covered up). The oblong blocks, with an exceptionally 
high proportion of length to width and thickness, used in these piers (cf. 
figs. 9, 24 [A]; 25, 26 [B]; 14, 23 [C]) are clearly akin to the blocks 
which form so characteristic an element of Palestinian architecture during 
the tenth and ninth centuries B. C., as illustrated by the buildings of the 
fifth stratum (‘‘Solomonic’’) at Megiddo, and Ahab’s palace at Samaria. 
The closest parallel available is the masonry of the so-called Solomonic 
towers in the outer wall of Gezer (Gezer, I, 248, fig. 129). The real 
similarity existing between our construction and those mentioned must not 
be obscured by the fact that the stones used in the former are only hammer- 
dressed, and not nicely hewn, as in the latter cases. 

Between the inner and outer wall on the northern side we found two 
vertical drains (cf. figs. 21 and 22), each with a diameter inside of 55-60 
em. and a height of at least 540 cm. above the huwar. The purpose of these 
drains, which stop at the hwwar, was naturally to allow rain-water to escape 
without damaging the fortifications by carrying away the clay mortar from 
between the stones. Similar drains are not found elsewhere, so far as the 
writer knows; the vertical built drain figured by Macauisrer (Gezer, I, 
p. 279, fig. 146) has a square instead of a circular or polygonal section, as 
ours have. 

The third fortress was destroyed and rebuilt once, as shown by the resto- 
rations of the inside walls, invariably poorly made, and the filling of the 
opening in the north-south wall just to the west of piers B and C (fig. 15). 
Originally there was a passage-way here, with two similar piers flanking it. 

The pottery of the third fortress is no longer so varied as that of the 
second, and shows a monotonous uniformity of type, bowls being the domi- 
nant vessel. We may safely ascribe this uniformity to the semi-garrison 
life led by the men stationed here. The cooking pot vanishes entirely, its 
place being taken by a bowl with thick rims and ring burnishing, nearly 
always of red ware (plate XXVII). The rim diameter is more variable 
than in the case of the cooking pots, ranging in different specimens from 
Tell el-Fil between 35 and 49 em. The smaller saucers, nos. 22-6, vary 
from 16 to 30 em. inside rim diameter. The saucers of the older rim type 
figured on plate X XVI, nos. 27-8, measure 18 and 20 em. respectively, while 


22 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


the beautiful plate no. 29 has a diameter of 16 cm. at the rim. All these 
sherds are ring-burnished inside and on the rim, and most of them are also 
ring-burnished on the outside. In the better specimens the effect is unques- 
tionably artistic, a fact which explains the extraordinary popularity of this 
technique during the time of the Divided Kingdom. 

This type of ware is so very common that it would seem hardly necessary 
to give examples from other sites. Cf., however, Excavations, plate 55; 
Jericho, p. 144, and plate 38, D 12. Curiously enough, it is apparently not 
mentioned at all in Gezer or elsewhere in the publications. The writer has 
found it on all Palestinian sites of the pre-exilic period hitherto examined, 
especially in Southern Palestine, both in the plain and in the hill country. 
It was less common among the sherds from Ashkelon, however, where 
painted ornament predominates, and burnishing is rare after the first phase 
of the Iron Age. It is common at Beth-shemesh and Gezer, at Tell Mahmar 
and Tell Jiljilieh in the ‘Auja Valley, at Dor, at Tell ‘Amr and Harbaj 
in the Plain of Accho, at Megiddo, Samaria, and intervening sites, as far. 
south as Tell Abii Mahftz (ancient Beersheba). The investigations of 
Woo.uey and LAWRENCE in the Negeb (see above) have shown that it is 
equally common in early Jewish sites there. It cannot be emphasized too 
strongly that ring-burnished ware belongs exclusively to the Early Iron 
Age; nowhere in Palestine do we find specimens from the Bronze Age. It 
certainly originated in the application of the wheel to the burnishing 
technique employed in the first phase of the Iron Age, which we have 
learned to know from Gibeah II. In a number of vessels from the first 
phase we have what looks at first sight like wheel burnishing, but on more 
careful examination it turns out to be continuous burnishing where the 
continuity is broken by depressions in the surface. Since these depressions 
tended, especially with the development of emphasis on the rills caused by 
the wheel—a peculiarity of the Early Iron Age after 1000 B. C. (ef. Beth- 
shemesh, p. 87)—to run in a horizontal direction, the attempt to burnish 
continuously would give the effect of horizontal ring-burnishing. It was 
precisely this effect which the potters seized upon and developed to a high 
degree of perfection (cf. plate XXX, nos. 22-5). Ring-burnishing is thus 
the most characteristic method of decoration in the period from the tenth 
century, when it comes in, to about the sixth century, after which it dis- 
appears, though it is still doubtful whether it survived down into the Per- 
sian period or not (see below). It was certainly, however, extinct before 
the Hellenistic period. 

Turning to the types of bases found in the third stratum (plate X XIX, 
figs. 15-24) we note, as observed in the previous section, that the proportion 
of dise-bases has fallen greatly when compared with the second period, and 
that ring-bases are dominant. Nos. 15, 17, 19-23 are ring-burnished ; no. 21 


THE RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS 20 


is covered inside with a red haematite slip, and is beautifully ring-burnished 
so as to form a continuous burnished surface. Nos. 15 and 18 are not 
burnished, No. 24 resembles, in shape, color and technique, nos. 8-9, of 
the second period, but is coarser and thicker. 

As noted previously, the characteristic handle of the third period (plate 
XXX, nos. 8-14) is ribbed, instead of having a smooth oval section as in the 
second period. There are a few smooth handles from this stratum, but the 
vast majority are ribbed lengthwise. No. 8 illustrates the transition, since 
the ribbing only appears here in the raised lines running lengthwise of the 
handle. Nos. 12-14 are of the familiar type to which the handles with the 
royal seals belong, of coarse black clay with minute white particles of lime- 
stone or quartz, burned usually to a reddish brown, though the color varies. 
No. 14 bore the MamSat stamp, which is of a new type with a curious 
ligature of the mems; the nearest parallel among the seals so far known 
is published in Gezer, II, p. 211, fig. 361. Since the whole question of these 
royal jar stamps will be fully discussed elsewhere, it is sufficient to say here 
that they date, in the writer’s opinion, from the eighth and seventh 
centuries only, and that the towns of Hebron, Ziph, Socoh, and MaméSat 
(Mampsis, east of Beersheba) were capitals of administrative districts, 
where the royal tribute (or taxes) was collected before being sent to Jeru- 
salem. There was probably a standard size for the amphoras in which the 
wine and oil belonging to the royal tribute was stored. 

While the fortress was destroyed by fire toward the end of the eighth 
century B. C. (see below), its abandonment did not mean the end of settle- 
ment on the site. With its fall begins, in fact, the record of the village 
on the summit, which seems to have lasted from the seventh or eighth 
century B.C. on down to the first century A.D. (see chapter V). The 
bulk of the pottery found in the first trenches on the summit of the hill 
belonged to the Persian and Seleucid (Hellenistic) period, between the sixth 
and the third centuries B.C. On plate XXXII, figs. 1-22, I have illus- 
trated the principal types of objects in clay found on the summit of the 
hill, but outside of the tumulus, belonging to this period. The rims nos. 
1-13 all belong to jugs of various kinds. The turned-over rims in the first 
row, though very similar in appearance to the Bronze Age bowl rims of 
this type, have nothing to do with them, unless we assume an ultimate com- 
mon origin. No. 1, one of the earliest, and certainly the earliest in shape, 
ascribed plausibly by Pére VincENT to the seventh century B. C., is almost 
~ exactly like the older bowl rims in section; the diameter is, however, so very 
different that no confusion is possible. No. 14, also dated by Pére VINCENT 
in the earlier part of our period (sixth-fifth century), is descended from the 
family of bowls figured on plate X XVII, but is definitely turned over, and 
is not burnished. None of the rims of this type from the village of the 


24 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


Persian period were burnished; the technique of rim-burnishing had 
apparently disappeared during the exilic period, at least in the neighborhood 
of Gibeah. 

The handles of this period carry on the tradition of the third period very 
closely. No. 16 is very like the characteristic royal stamp handles, but is 
freer from foreign particles, and hence probably later. There is a marked 
tendency toward thicker, coarser, and more strongly ribbed handles during 
this period. No. 19 is the handle of a jug from about the sixth to the fifth 
century (VINCENT), and represents an intermediate stage between the corre- 
sponding type of the third period and that of the Seleucid age. The section 
is irregular, being smooth oval outside, and angular inside. Just below the 
handle is a potter’s mark, apparently an old Hebrew beth. On another 
vase, apparently an amphora, the potter has incised a taw just below the 
handle (no. 20). No. 22 is a handle from about the sixth century (VIN- 
CENT) in the form of a bull’s head and neck. Most of the analogous bulls’ 
heads belong to spouts rather than to handles; ef. Jericho, p. 146, fig. 171 
(from about the same period), and the illustrations in Gezer, III, plates — 
CXXIV-VI. The modeling of our specimen is not bad; the loss of the 
horns gives it a curious almost mouse-like effect. WatzincEeR (Jericho, loc. 
eit.) mentions parallels from Cyprus, belonging to the Iron Age; bull 
spouts and handles may easily be another illustration of Cypro-Phoenician 
influence in Palestine. 

Before leaving the pottery of this period, a word may be said regarding 
the pottery of the tombs around Gibeah, many examples of which are pre- 
served in the museums, notably in the CuarK Collection, the museum of the 
Assumptionist Fathers at Notre Dame de France, and the German museums. 
Since a full discussion of these important collections would carry us far 
beyond our limits of space, and has no bearing upon the chronological 
arrangement of the Gibeah pottery, it may be reserved for another treat- 
ment. During our previous work at Tell el-FGl we paid no attention to 
the tombs; in a future campaign we hope to be able to study the tombs of 
the immediate vicinity, and in this connection a full treatment of the pottery 
already: found in them will be instructive. The pottery from Mr. CuarKk’s 
collection is published in PEFQS 1915, with notes by CuarK and Macat- 
ISTER on pp. 35-7. MAacanisTeR’s dates are too low; this is particularly 
true of his assignment of the Jewish water decanters reproduced in plate 
IV, 1 a-c, to the Maccabean age. Most of these decanters are ring- 
burnished, like all decanters of this type in the collection of the American 
School, as well as the decanter of the third period of Gibeah reproduced 
below, plate XXIV, 2. We found necks belonging to similar decanters in 
the débris of the third and following periods. The correct dating for these 
decanters, which come in early in the first millennium, and last down 


THE RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS 25 


through the Persian period, is given by Mackenzin, Beth-shemesh, pp. 
64-92, in the discussion of the date of the northwest necropolis, where they 
are exceedingly common. MAcKENzIE’s date of 700 B.C. for the close of 
the third period of Beth-shemesh should be altered to 600, in my opinion; 
the decanters in question then appear at Beth-shemesh between 900 and 600 
B.C., in accordance with our material from Gibeah. 

Of the other finds from the top of the hill, and hence to be dated in all 
probability between the seventh and the third centuries B. C., little was 
remarkable. Numerous rubbing stones of diorite and other materials were 
discovered; ef. plate XX XIII, nos. 13-14. Only one button, or boss, of 
stone turned up; ef. no. 11. The fibula no. 10 is of the characteristic 
oriental type of the first millennium, with a sharply bent bow, which 
WaAtTZINGER, Jericho, p. 151, regards as a West-Asiatic modification of the 
East Greek (better: Anatolian) type. Von LuscHan (Zeitschrift fiir 
Ethnologie, 1893, p. 387) has called attention to the fact that exactly similar 
fibulas have been found at Calah and Sam’al from about 700 B.C. To 
about the same period belong the Jericho fibula (plate 40, III, 5); the 
fibulas from Beth-shemesh (plates XXVII, 8-9; XXXVIII, 6; XL ,2-3; 
XLII, 11; LIX A, 18); from Tell Zakariyeh (Excavations, plate 80, 6; 
7-9 are of an entirely different curved type) ; from Gezer (plate CX XXIV, 
figs. 3, 6, 26, 27, etc.), where the dating is doubtful, though the Persian 
period is probable for the fibula from the ‘‘ Philistine’’ tomb deposits (plate 
DaVita. 0) 2: 

4. THe FourtH PERIOD 


After lying in ruins for some centuries the fortress was once again 
restored, serving probably as a watch-tower. The new builders followed 
the lines of the third fortress walls, so the inner and outer walls rise on 
the old foundations, and the glacis was similarly repaired and reused, 
though with slight alterations. The most important change in the outside 
fortifications seems to be that the glacis was left about a meter lower, a 
small wall being built on the truneated top to mask and protect the main 
outer wall (plate XXIVa, C; the dotted line represents the probable original 
top of the glacis). The materials left from the ruin of the third fortress 
were reused; among the stones, blocks of meleki are specially noteworthy, 
some of them being very respectable in size, though damaged by the vicissi- 
tudes through which they had passed since hewn by Baasha’s builders (see 
above) for his fortress in Ramah. The largest block found, which served 
as a corner stone in the inner wall, was 100 x 70 x 40 em. 


®For the dating of these tombs in the Persian period ef. Woou.Ley, Annals of 
Archaeology and Anthropology, Vol. VII, p. 128. They certainly have nothing to do 
with the Philistines. 


26 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


The interior of the fortress followed entirely new lines, disregarding the 
old foundations entirely, as may be seen from the central dotted lines in 
plate XXIII. Aside from the three small chambers in the middle, however, 
there were no cellar or basement rooms in the whole structure; the rest of 
the space was filled with débris, and served as a terrace platform, on which 
the watch-tower proper was erected.? For this reason the interior walls 
are only the inner face of the whole mass of masonry and débris, the outer 
face of which is formed by the outside of the inner walls. The carelessness 
and general inferiority of the masonry of the inner wall is shown by fig. 27. 
This wall rose to a height of at least two metres above its pavement of flat 
~ slabs, which was laid about fifty em. above the top of pier B (third period). 
Some of the outer walls were found in a relatively good state of preserva- 
tion; the inner wall on the north side rose for at least 350 cm. above its 
foundations. 

Besides door sockets, the only special building element found was a 
broken section of limestone column, excessively rude, 110 cm. in length and 
50-60 in diameter. 

The little pottery found which could be certainly referred to the fourth 
fortress was all of the Judaeo-Hellenistic type (Seleucid), with occasional 
fragments of glass. In view of the rudeness of the work and its date in the 
Seleucid period, we are therefore justified in regarding it as of local, 1. e., 
Jewish origin, evidently from the first part of the Maccabaean period, 
possibly from the end of the career of Judas Maccabaeus. The fortress 
was, at all events, a watch-tower, designed to protect the city of Jerusalem 
from a surprise from the north. 


®T have no idea how the Survey (see above) came to assume two small chambers 
situated as they are on their plan (Vol. III, p. 159), since even the dimensions do not 
correspond with our results, which are absolutely certain. The total height of the 
mound is given as 30 feet, and the depth of the chambers as 9 feet, so there is no room 
for an additional fifth stratum from the seventh phase (see below). Since one of the 
chambers is dotted on the Survey plan, one may suspect that it is hypothetical, and 
that the two chambers are erroneous reminiscences of the two chambers actually found, 
though the dimensions given agree only vaguely. The problem is complicated by 
GuERIN’s description of the results of WARREN’s excavation (Samarie, Vol. I, p. 188): 
‘*Au centre avait été construit une sorte de puits carré, aboutissant, dans sa partie 
inférieure, & une grande pierre percée d’un orifice circulaire et placée au-dessus d’une 
cavité peu considérable, dont le diamétre ne dépasse pas 1™, 30 et la hauteur 1™, 20.’’ 
This large stone reminds one of the large white slab which WARREN reached in his 
digging, according to the Fellah tradition at Beit Hannina (ef. above, chapter IJ). It 
may be that there was a secret cavity in the floor of the cellar of the fourth fortress, 
but we found no trace of it, nor, indeed, any room for it between the broken pavement 
which marked the floor of the cellar, and the undisturbed débris of the third period, 
about fifty em. below. Probably the cellar was divided into two parts, an upper and a 
lower, all trace of which division was removed by WARREN’s excavations, 


TiLK RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS 27 


With the increasing strength of the Jewish state the watch-tower became 
superflous, and was abandoned. Now a small settlement grew up around 
the tower, utilizing its materials and even its walls. These walls are found 
all around the base of the fortress, with foundations on the rock, showing 
that the base of the glacis remained clear up to this time. On the west and 
south sides, the glacis was in part removed to serve as building material, 
and the houses were built on or inside the line of the former revetment. 
The plaster which the Survey ascribes to the walls of the fortress belongs 
in reality to the inside house-walls of this seventh phase in the history of 
our tumulus; ef. fig. 28. 

Around the edges of the glacis were found several grain-pits, excavated 
in the huwar, and containing only pottery from the same period as the 
houses just described. While most of the grain-pits (Arabic matmirah, 
matamir) were small, not exceeding a meter in diameter, one was rather 
large, and may be more fully described. It was found near the northern 
base of the revetment, and was quite empty, except for potsherds and frag- 

ments of marl which had fallen from the ceiling. The pit was roughly oval 
‘in shape, 475x360 em., and 170 em. in average height. Access was 
obtained by a roughly-arched doorway on the north, with a flight of steps 
leading up and out. In the roof, however, were three round holes, each 
45-50 em. in diameter, and all covered by large stones when found. It 
happened that this pit was opened late one day, and that work had to be 
suspended the next. Naturally the report spread that the hawdjah had 
stopped work in order to come secretly and carry off all the treasure con- 
cealed in the pit. Formal complaint was made to the governorate in Jeru- 
salem, but the matter was not taken seriously by the authorities, and was 
presently dropped by the villagers. One may suspect with reason that this 
pit was built before the fourth period; in fact a ring-burnished sherd was 
found inside, though so sporadic a find might have come from débris of the 
third period which accidentally fell into the pit. However this may be, all 
the remaining sherds—several baskets full—belonged to the thin biscuit- 
ware type characteristic of the Hellenistic-Roman of the first century B. C. 
and the first century or two A.D. This thin hard ware, nearly all ribbed 
inside and outside, and usually a dark reddish-brown in color, was charac- 
teristic of the houses as well as of the grain-pits and carries us into the 
beginning of the Roman domination (see below) ; a typical jug, put together 
from sherds found in the pit, is shown in plate XXIV, 3. 


IV. IDENTIFICATION OF THE SITE WITH GIBEAH 


The site of Gibeah has long ranked among the contested problems which, 
though settled again and again to the apparent satisfaction of all, keep 
emerging for a new debate. The matter has been argued from every angle 
for more than eighty years, and while the trend of opinion has favored the 
identification with Tell el-Fil, enemies of the identification have strangely 
persisted until very recently in contradicting it. Tell el-Fl belongs to the 
large class of sites where the ancient name has been lost, and where only 
thorough archaeological research, combined with critical topographic method 
can decide, unless inscriptions are found to settle the matter once for all. 
The history of the discussion is so curious and interesting, besides being 
characteristic, that it is well worth a brief recapitulation in the following 
pages. 

When the science of Palestinian topography was founded by Roprnson’s 
epoch-making work, Biblical Researches, in 1841, the great American scholar 
identified Gibeah with modern Jeba‘, and left the site of Geba doubtful. 
The merit of having first suggested Tell el-Ffl belongs to Gross, who 
advanced his theory in Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1848, p. 1082. 
ROBINSON at once saw. the value of Gross’s suggestion and adopted it, in 
Bibliotheca Sacra, 1844, p. 598, later incorporating it into the second edition 
of his Biblical Researches, Vol I, pp. 577-9 (1856). In the latter place we 
find the first careful study of the question, with reference to the statements 
of Josephus as well as to the biblical passages, which Gross had alone 
noticed. Some years later, in 1858, VALENTINER, who was German pastor 
at Jerusalem for some years, proposed the identification of Tell el-Fal with 
Gibeah independently (ZDMG XII, pp. 162-4); in a footnote the editor 
ealled attention to the priority of: Roprnson and Gross. When Gu£rRIN 
published (Samarie, Vol. I, pp. 188-197) in 1874 the fruits of his journey 
four years previously, he was able to sum up all the evidence hitherto 
presented, and to declare that Tell el-Ffil was almost certainly the site of 
Gibeah. 

The matter was not, however, allowed to rest here. In 1877 Conpmr, then 
in Palestine on behalf of the monumental survey, published a short article 
(PEFQS, 1877, pp. 104-5) in which he maintained that Geba was the name 
of the town (modern Jeba‘) and Gibeah of the surrounding district. Tell 
el-Fiil he suggested might be the site of Ophni, a town of Benjamin men- 
tioned in the OT, because Arabic fil in place-names represented Heb. ophel, 
which is not dissimilar to Ophni in form. In those heroic days exact phi- 
lology and archaeology were hardly known. In the same journal, p. 205, 


IDENTIFICATION OF THE SITE WITH GIBEAH 29 


CoNDER was criticised by the Rev. W. F. Brrcu, who defended the identifica- 
tion of Gibeah with Tell el-Fal. Four years later (PEF QS, 1881, p. 89) 
CONDER replied to his eritic, stating that ‘‘Tell el-Fal is an isolated monu- 
ment (probably a beacon) and not a city at all.’’ This misleading argu- 
ment naturally led Brrou to change his ground, and in a brief note he pro- 
posed ‘‘Khirbet ’Adaseh,’’' two miles east of Gibeon, as the true site of 
Gibeah. 

When the third volume of the Survey of Western Palestine was issued 
(1883), Tell el-FGl was fully described (pp. 158-160), and plans of 
(WARREN’S) excavations were given, but no attempts were made to identify 
the site, or to find another location for Gibeah. Grorce ApAM SmirH did 
not even mention the problem in his Historical Geography of the Holy Land 
(1894). On the other hand Bunun, Geographie des alten Palistina (1896), 
p. 171, saw no reason to reject the current German view that Gibeah was 
Tell el-FGl, while StTENNING in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II 
(1900), as well as CHEYNE in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (Vol. II. 1901) 
accepted it without reservation. 

The matter rested for some years, until in 1906 F&DERLIN wrote in the 
Revue Biblique (1906, 271 f.) defending Hirbet es-Sikkeh, a small ruin a 
few minutes southwest of the foot of Tell el-Fal,? as the site of ancient 
Gibeah. His principal argument was that there were no ruins on Tell el-FGl 
except for the old fortress, while at Hirbet es-Sikkeh there were ruins—and 
more important still, cisterns, which were all but lacking on Tell el-Fdl. 
Today the ruins of Hirbet es-Sikkeh have practically disappeared, leaving 
behind Byzantine and Arabic potsherds, to testify to a comparatively late 
occupation. The idea, however, that ancient Gibeah lay somewhere close 
to the foot of Tell el-Fal proved fascinating to others as well as to F&DERLIN. 
In 1909 Hacemrver (ZDPV XXXII, 1-37) proposed to fix the site of 
Gibeah at Hirbet el-Hawanit, a few minutes from thé northwestern foot of 


1This name has suffered severely at the hands of scholars. There are actually two 
names: Hirbet ‘Adddseh, belonging to the important ruins northwest of Tell el-Fal 
and northeast of Gibeon; and Hirbet el-‘ Adaseh, applied to the ruins of a small village 
just northeast of Tell el-Fil, also called Beit Lijjeh. The form ‘Addseh usually given 
for the first of the two is wrong; the Palestinian Arab is very fond of forming place- 
names after the model qattdlah, properly the plural (collective) of nouns of occupation 
(for this development cf. especially WorreLtL, JPOS I, 17 f.). Hirbet ‘Addaseh is 
certainly the ancient Adasa, as best shown by LinpER, SG 116-128, though he unfortu- 
nately writes ‘Addse. It may be added that the original name was doubtless HadaSah ; 
the modern form represents the common assimilation of h to a following voiced stop 
(see below, passim), and a popular etymology explaining the name, now become unin- 
telligible, as ‘‘Ruin of the Lentil-dealers.’’ Hirbet el-‘Adaseh means simply ‘‘ Ruin 
of Lentil(s),’’ i. e., where lentils grow. 

? For Hirbet es-Sikkeh ef. Linprr, SG 153 f. 


30 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


the hill. The elaborate discussion of HaceMeEysER could only prove that 
Gibeah was at Tell el-FGl or in the immediate vicinity; few would be 
willing to place an important ancient town in such an unfavorable situation 
as Hirbet el-Hawanit. For this reason Vincent (Revue Biblique, 1909, 
p. 335), in reviewing HAGEMEYER’s article, placed the acropolis of Gibeah 
on Tell el-FGl, though inclined to agree with F4DERLIN in seeing an ancient 
settlement at the southwestern foot of the hill. V1iNcENT pointed out justly 
that Hirbet el-Hawanit was a Byzantine-Arab ruin (which has now practi- 
cally vanished) ; it may be observed that this statement applies equally well 
to Hirbet es-Sikkeh.* ; 

About the same time DauMAN and his pupil, Aut, expressed the convic- 
tion that Gibeah was located on Tell el-Fal (PJB V, 75; VI, 51 f£., 1909-10). 
In 1911 Erwin Neste defended the same identification in an elaborate 
study of the topography of Judaea in the time of Josephus (ZDPV XXXIV, 
98 f.). Against such an array of sound learning Havssr’s unscientific 
effort to place Gibeah of Saul at Nebi Samwil and Gibeah of Benjamin at 
Geba (PEFQS 1910, 283-6) could make no headway. 

In 1911 there began in the Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly a long 
discussion of the site of Gibeah, as a result of BrrcH’s attempt to prove a 
suggestion he had dropped thirty years before, that Gibeah was situated at 
Hirbet ‘ Adaseh, i. e. Hirbet ‘Addaseh (see note above). BrrcH maintained 
his ground against MackEnziz and MAsTeRMAN in several papers,* but 
finally gave up with rather bad grace as the odds were hopelessly against 
him. Mackenzie (PEFQS 1911, 97-100) described the result of visits to 
Tell el-Fil and Hirbet ‘Addaseh. Tell el-FGl he found to be an important 
ancient site, and the potsherds which are strewed so generously over the 
summit he identified as Jewish; the fort, which had hitherto been regarded 
by ConpER, DALMAN, and others as Crusading, appeared to him also Jewish 
(Pére ViNcENT told the writer once that he had long regarded the glacis 
of the fortress as early Israelite, if not Canaanite). At Hirbet ‘Addaseh, 
on the other hand, he found no trace of the Jewish period; all was 
post-Christian, mainly Byzantine. The observations of MACKENZIE were 
followed up by MastTeRMAN, who visited the sites with the well-known 
overseer, Ytisuf, and reported in PEFQS 1914, 132-7. His statements are 
even more emphatic than MAcCKENzIn’s; at Hirbet ‘Addaseh he made two 
trial pits, but all the sherds which appeared, down to the rock, were Byzan- 
tine and Arab. Tell el-Ffl impressed him strongly by the enormous 
number of Israelite, Jewish and Roman potsherds which strewed the hill. 

Meanwhile Macauister set out on a wrong trail, in an article on ‘‘The 


> Cf. LinpEr, loc. cit. 
4See PEFQS 1911, 101-9, 161; 1913, 38-41; 1914, 42-4. 


IDENTIFICATION OF THE SITE WITH GIBEAH 31 


Topography of Rachel’s Tomb’”’ (PEFQS 1912, 74-82), where he identified 
Gibeah of Benjamin with Geba and Gibeah of Saul = ‘‘Gibeah of God’’ 
with Ramallah, following Grorce ApAM SMITH. MAcAListTEeR’s argument is 
singularly unconvincing, and his combination of Ephrath with the Wadi 
Farah, ancient Parah, which brings him to identify the tomb of Rachel 
with the late megalithic monuments known as the qbur bent Isra’in, is very 
improbable.® Certain contentions, such as his statement that the ancient 
road northward from Jerusalem followed the Geba-Michmash-Bethel route, 
will be discussed below. 

Three years later (PEFQS 1915, 35-7, with four plates) CuArK and 
MAcALISTER figured and discussed over forty vases from tombs at Tell el-Fal 
in the collection of the former. MacauisTer reached the conclusion, from 
which no archaeologist would dissent, that this pottery was all Israelite and 
Jewish, mainly from about the middle of the first millennium B. C.° 
MACALISTER, however, expressed no opinion in regard to the ancient town 
which lay at the site which he had treated so cavalierly three years before. 
In the same year M6tLER (ZDPV XXXVIII, 49-53) defended the equation 
Tell el-FGl = Gibeah, though without advancing any new arguments, and 
with no appreciation of the fact that archaeologists had already recognized 
the Israelite and Jewish date of the ancient town which lay on the hill. 
Strange to say MOuuer still labored under the delusion that there was no 
trace of the ancient town visible on the hill, despite the enormous quantity 
of potsherds, which had convinced archaeologists of the importance of the 
site. And now the question was ready to rest for seven years, until the 
world, sated with conflict, quieted down, permitting the scholar to resume 
his peaceful activity. 

Let us turn then to the consideration of the literary material bearing on 
the identification of Gibeah with Tell el-Fal. Few topographical questions 
in Palestine offer so much evidence to weigh, but the evidence is unfortu- 
nately rather complicated. The most serious difficulty is the fact that 
there are two places, Gibeah and Geba, only a few miles apart and differing 
only very slightly in name, Gibeah being the feminine form of Geba. In 
several passages the: context imperatively demands the correction of 
‘“Gibeah’’ into ‘‘Geba,’’ and vice versa. Moreover, the fact that three 
Gibeahs appear to be distinguished—Gibeah of Benjamin, Gibeah of Saul, 
and Gibeah of God—doubly complicates the problem. For this reason we 
shall take up the location of the two Gibeahs separately; if their sites 
coincide we are justified in identifying them. 

As soon as we take up the question of Gibeah of Benjamin, a new problem 


° Cf. Appendix IT, note 6. 
° His dates are in part too low; ef. the discussion above. 


az EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


appears; there is a Geba of Benjamin Raids) Y3)), as well as a Gibeah of 
Benjamin ('9°J2 NY), and the two names differ only in a single letter, 
which is, moreover only a formative element. The name ‘‘Geba of Benja- 
min’’ is found only three times in M (Jud. 20,,, I Sam. 13,,, and I Kings 
15,,) while ‘‘Gibeah of Benjamin’’ occurs seven times (77°33 nysi in 
T'Sam.132, 35 14:3, Oda edo fod in I Samocee a Geel erty elt 
1799939 TWN in Jud. 19,, and 20,). Since it is not credible that both 
Geba and Gibeah received the same appellation (see below), ‘‘of Benjamin’’ 
should belong to Gibeah, in order to distinguish it from other ‘‘ Hills,”’ 
especially in view of the fact that ‘‘of Benjamin’’ occurs much more often 
with Gibeah than with Geba. That ‘‘Geba of Benjamin”’ is an error for 
‘*Gibeah of Benjamin’’ in Jud. 20,, is self-evident from the context, a fact 
that increases the ratio in favor of Gibeah from 7:3 to 8:2. G, moreover, 
read ‘‘Gibeah’’ in its prototype not only here, but in the other two passages 
as well! However, the Gordian knot cannot be cut by identifying Geba 
with Gibeah, since they are sharply distinguished in the lists. We must. 
therefore examine all the cases before endorsing G unreservedly. 

Of the two passages where Geba and Gibeah are mentioned, Jud. 19-20 
and I Sam. 13-14, the former. is by far the easier to handle. Jud. 19,,¢ 
relates that the Levite who was bringing his runaway mistress from Beth- 
lehem to his home in Mount Ephraim reached Jerusalem late in the after- 
noon, but was unwilling to stop there as urged by his servant, being anxious 
to push on and reach an Israelite town, either Gibeah or Ramah, before 
sunset. In those days it was doubtless even less safe for an unarmed way- 
farer to remain on the road after dark than it is today, when the fellah 
is filled with consternation at the very thought of such a thing. As it was, 
Ramah proved too far, being three hours from Ophel for travelers on 
asses, so they stopped at Gibeah. The only natural interpretation of our 
passage is that both Gibeah and Ramah lay on the road running northward 
to Ephraim from Jerusalem. As Ramah lies on the road which follows the 
watershed, which has been employed at least from Roman times, it must 
be supposed that Gibeah lay here also, between Jerusalem and Ramah.’ 
The Hebrew name of the place almost always has the article, hag-Gib‘ah, 
‘‘the hill,’’ a designation which can only be applied to Tell el-FGl, the 
highest hill in this whole region east of Nebi Samwil, especially since this 
is the only hill on this section of the road with Israelite remains. 
Macauister, however, has urged that the ancient Israelite road did not 


7 LinpeR, SG 20-22, tries to deduce a still more exact localization from the text, but 
his arguments are a little fine-spun. One can hardly conclude from our passage that 
Gibeah lay about an hour north of Jerusalem (en knapp timmes fard norr om denna 
stad). 


IDENTIFICATION OF THE SITE WITH GIBEAH 313) 


follow the Roman road, but ran farther east, by way of Anathoth, Geba, 
and Michmas, following the famous pass over the Wadi es-Sweinit. In 
defense of his view he points out that the Assyrian army, marching on 
Jerusalem from Samaria, followed this route (Is. 10 ...). He thinks, 
therefore, that the Gibeah of Judges was Geba, and that the Levite saw 
Geba and Ramah as alternative lodging places. Here it may be observed 
that Ramah would be entirely off the Jerusalem-Geba road, and that we 
should expect Anathoth or Michmas in its place. Ancient paths, like 
modern ones in Palestine, led from village to village, so there could not have 
been a path leading northward between Geba and Ramah, as MacauisTer 
seems to think. Such a route would be unheard of in this vicinity, unless 
it followed a wadi, which is out of the question here. 'The Assyrian road is 
easily explained.* The ancient Israelite road from Mount Ephraim to 
Jerusalem must have followed the watershed, like the later one, in order to 
avoid so far as possible the continual ascents and descents which make 
cross-country trips in Palestine seem like an interminable series of wddis. 
This road was, however, certainly not paved or graded; it was merely a 
path, though doubtless wider than other less important trails. For the 
Assyrian baggage-trains arduous ascents were avoided so far as possible. 
From Shechem to Lebonah (Lubban) at the mouth of the Wadi Seiltn, 
there was an excellent road. At Lebonah the way southward was barred 
by a difficult ascent, now one of the worst automobile switchbacks in Pales- 
tine, where a small force of defenders might resist a host. Hence the 
Assyrians chose the Wadi Seiltin, leading past the famous old shrine of 
Shiloh, and giving them ready access to Bethel and northeastern Judah. 
But it does not follow that this was the normal road southwards from 
Mount Ephraim. 

We have, accordingly, no escape from the conclusion that the Gibeah of 
Judges is distinct from Geba, and since Jud. 19,,, 20, eall it ‘‘Gibeah which 
belongs to Benjamin,’’ we must consider it the Gibeah of Benjamin men- 
tioned in other passages of the Bible. As noted above, we must read in 20,, 
‘‘Gibeah of Benjamin,’’ as seen by the versions and commentators. 

When the Israelites invaded Benjamin, in order to avenge the atrocity 
perpetrated by the Benjamites, they gathered at Mizpah, the usual rendez- 
vous of Israelite armies, now Nebi Samwil, in western Benjamin. It is 
true that there has been much opposition of late to the identification of 
Mizpah with Nebi Samwil, especially on the part of DALMAN and his school, 
but it seems absolutely certain*to the writer (see the paper on Mizpah 
appended to this study). The first attack on Gibeah probably came from 
the direction of Mizpah, but was beaten back; presumably the Israelites 


.* Cf, Appendix IV. 


34 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


were surprised as they emerged from the Wadi Beit Hannina.® The 
Israelites then went up to Bethel to consult the oracle there; the second 
attack came from the north, from the direction of Ramah and Geba. In 
the third attack the Israelites changed their tactics. A body of men was 
sent around to the west of Gibeah, to hide in the little wadi leading from 
Tell el-Fal to Beit Hannina, some fifteen minutes from Gibeah. From 
experience the writer can say that a body of men concealed here would not 
be visible from the summit of the tell, which in its turn is not visible to 
them. The Hebrew text, Jud. 20,,, reads PII A IPHD. introducing a 
hapaxlegomenon generally rendered ‘‘meadow,’’ but we must naturally 
read, following the versions, TY3IO)- Dayo. ‘west of Gibeah.’’?° 

* Meanwhile the main body advanced southward toward Gibeah, but retired 
before the triumphant men of Benjamin until they had drawn them to a 
sufficient distance from the town, thus permitting the liers in wait to storm 
the place without resistance and set it on fire. Jud. 20,, says that Israel 
retreated along the two roads (not ‘“‘highways’’!—"5D corresponds 
exactly to Arabic tariq, which means both ‘‘high-road’’ and ‘‘foot-path’’) — 
leading to Bethel and to ‘‘Gibeah in the field’? (QIWI MMPI). The 
former is presumably equivalent in the main to the modern road from Jeru- 
salem to Bireh, whence it branches northeast to Beitin; the second led to 
Geba (read AYN) instead of AAYPII) through the fields lying north and 
northeast of Tell el-Ffl.1! When the Benjamites glanced back and saw 


® One can hardly lay too much stress on the mention of Mizpah, however, since in any 
case our source considers it as a gathering place with a religious significance, not as a 
military base. 

10 LinpER, SG 30 f. adopts the usual emendation yoo) IVY, ‘west of Geba,’’ 
and calls -BircH’s proposal (PEFQS 1911, 105) to read ‘‘Gibeah’’ here instead of 
“‘Geba’’ ‘‘ett egendomligt forsdk.’’ This time, however, Bircu is clearly right in 
following G (A), though accidentally so, since his whole theory is widely different. 
‘‘West of Geba’’ would be too far from Tell el-Fal for a satisfactory ambush. More- 
over, the ambush surely did not rush upon the town from the same direction which the 
retreat afterward took. LINpDER’s discussion SG 31-7 suffers seriously from the assump- 
tions, borrowed from the commentators, who did not know the country, that the 
Israelite feigned retreat took the road to Gibeon instead of that to Geba, and that the 
ambush was placed west of Geba instead of west of Gibeah. The ambush was not set 
in one of the valleys west of Geba, and thus two miles or so from Tell el-Fal, but 
presumably in the ravine Si‘b et-Tuffah, which begins just below the western foot of 
Tell el-Fal and empties into Wadi Beit Hannina. Five minutes from the foot of 
Tell el-Fal one descends out of sight behind the ills west of the tell. If the Israelites 
controlled the region of Mizpah, as implied in the source, they could easily send a body 
of men around by the Wadi Beit Hannina, where they would be entirely out of sight, 
since the wddi runs at right angles to the line of sight from the tell. 

1 LINDER’S treatment SG 26-7 is rather unsatisfactory, due to his following BuppE 


and the other commentators who wish to read here mya instead of Mays. The 


IDENTIFICATION OF THE SITE WITH GIBEAH By) 


their town on fire, they turned and fled toward the wilderness—i. e. the 
Ghéor—but were pursued for several miles, ‘‘until over against Geba (so 
read instead of Gibeah) eastwards,’’ that is, until they reached the ridge 
east of Geba. That this was really the direction of their retreat is proved 
by the fact that they finally stopped at the sela‘ Rimmén, which has been 
well identified with a striking cliff near Ramm6n, some miles east of Bethel. 
Now, if we identified Gibeah of Benjamin here with Geba, the whole story 
would show the most paradoxical inconsistencies of topography, instead of 
being so clear. Since ‘‘Gibéah (Geba) in the field’’ lay north of Gibeah of 
Benjamin, the latter must lie south or southwest of Jeba‘, that is, close to 
Tell el-Fal. 

Let us now turn to I Sam. 13-14, which describes the war between Saul 
and the Philistines. Owing to the confusion exhibited by both M and the 
versions in the use of ‘‘Geba’’ and ‘‘Gibeah’’ the geographical situation is 
at times obscure. This obscurity is increased by the obvious disorder into 
which the traditional text has fallen, as well as by the frequent unreliability 
of our source or sources. We cannot, therefore, hope to solve the problems 
involved in a definitive fashion, but only to propose an interpretation which 
avoids the most serious objections and endeavors to understand the narra- 
tive as handed down to us. After giving our own version of events we may 
consider briefly the most important variations of other scholars. 

When the rebellion against the Philistines broke out in the second year 
of Saul’s reign, we find the king in Michmas and Mount Bethel (13,.,), 
while Jonathan is in Gibeah of Benjamin. After this statement of the 
alignment the narrative goes on to give a short account of the events leading 
up to it (18,_,): And Jonathan had smitten the prefect’* of the Philistines 
who was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. And Saul blew the 
trumpet (i.e., had the trumpet blown) in the whole land, saying, Let the 
Hebrews hear! And all Israel heard, saying, Saul has smitten the prefect 
of the Philistines, and Israel has thus made itself hated by the Philistines. 
So the people were called together after Saul to Gilgal—The prefect of the 
Philistines was not, however, stationed at Geba or at Gibeah of Benjamin, 
but at Gib‘at Elohim, the ‘‘ Hill of God’’ at Bethel, now Burj Beitin in all 
probability, as shown in Appendix II (Ramah of Samuel). Our source has 
confused the Gibeahs again, as often. Geba is altogether too unfavorably 


expression ‘‘in the field’’ can hardly apply to the old Beth-horon road running past 
Gibeon and emerging into the watershed road (Nablus road) just north of Tell el-Fdl, 
since the former must have been a highroad long before the Romans paved it, from the 
nature of the country and its communications (SG 13 f.). But from Gibeah to Geba 
there was only a path leading through the fields. 

"The word nasib undoubtedly means both ‘‘pillar’’ (pillar of salt) and ‘‘prefect,’’ 
but the meaning ‘‘garrison,’’ though traditional, is very doubtful, since there is not a 
single certain occurrence of it in the O.T. 


36 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


situated for a Philistine post controlling the hill-country of Central Pales- 
tine; for this reason alone Geba cannot come into serious consideration. 
Gibeah of Benjamin if at Tell el-F'Gl is well situated, but the excavations 
have shown clearly that there was no Philistine fortress there (see above) 
at any time. Moreover, the natural place for such a fortress would be at or 
near Bethel, just as stated I Sam. 10,. 

In the light of this consideration we must reconstruct the course of events 
in some such way as the following, assuming that our source is essentially 
correct in’ its main facts. The war or, rather, rebellion was begun by 
Jonathan’s seizure of the central Philistine post at Burj Beitin, which 
controlled southern Mount Ephraim and Benjamin. Saul thereupon took 
charge of the fortress from which the Philistines had just been expelled, 
together with the country about, between Bethel and Michmas, while Jon- 
athan was sent to Gibeah in his father’s place, in order to defend the 
paternal home. It was only natural that Saul should assume the responsi- 
bility for the most important task, that’ of defending Bethel. The Philis- 
tines, however, promptly sent an army against Saul, who was forced by the 
far superior number of his foes to retire before them to the east. After 
crossing the Wadi es-Sweinit he was able to check their advance, owing to 
the strength of his position at Geba. But it was now imperatively necessary 
to increase his army, so Saul left Jonathan in charge of the body at Geba 
and Gibeah, while he himself hastened to Gilgal near Jericho, the old 
Israelite holy place, in order to gather more men.’* I Sam. 13,¢-¢ describes 
his unavailing efforts to stem the tide of panic that was sweeping his forces 
away, and his anxious waiting for a Samuel who failed to come. Saul 
finally offered a sacrifice to Yahweh, hoping in this way to obtain divine 
favor, as his predecessors had in the past. A new day had come, however, 
and Samuel was a stickler for Levitic privileges, including the exclusive 
right to offer sacrifices, so when Samuel finally arrived on the scene there 
was a quarrel. There was no more hope of raising an army in Gilgal, so 
Saul'* returned to Gibeah, as the Hebrew text correctly reads. Since Jon- 
athan was still holding the Philistines at the Wadi es-Sweinit, Saul visited 
his home before going to Geba. The next verse, however, correctly reads 
‘‘Geba’’; the addition ‘‘of Benjamin’’ is dittographic. Saul went directly 
from Gibeah to Geba, in order to supervise Jonathan’s operations there. 

Now the tide shifted. As soon as Saul had arrived, Jonathan, finding 


#3 Cf, Appendix II, note 3. Gilgal in our passage cannot possibly refer to Jiljilieh, 
since this combination would usher in a whole train of the wildest paradoxes. 

%4#7T Sam. 13,, we must naturally read ‘‘Saul’’ for ‘‘Samuel,’’ with the best 
commentaries. In the original text, without matres lectionis this would mean only the 
change of SNM’ to Sep: the mistake was very easy, since Samuel and Saul were 
both mentioned several times in the immediately preceding narrative. 


IDENTIFICATION OF THE SITE WITH GIBEAH aie 


himself freed from the task of commanding, repeated the coup. which had 
gained the stronghold at Bethel for him some time before, and seized an 
enemy post overlooking the Wadi es-Sweinit. According to tradition this 
stroke was followed immediately by a great earthquake, which threw the 
Philistine host into a panic. At this point our source shows a vagueness 
which is unfortunate for us. Was Saul at the time in Geba or Gibeah? 
I Sam. 14, states that he was in Gibeah, but the Migron mentioned in this 
connection seems to have been near Geba (see Appendix IV). On the other 
hand, 14, calls the town just opposite Michmas correctly Geba (Hebrew 
text), a fact which should make us chary in emending all ‘‘Gibeahs’’ of our 
text to ‘‘Geba.’’ The original text must have distinguished between two 
places in the immediate neighborhood, ‘‘Geba’’ and ‘‘Gibeah,’’ since the 
present rather confused alternation of names must have had some basis. 
The scribes were not quite fools, and normally preferred consistency to 
inconsistency. When we find inconsistency in their mistakes we may safely 
assume that there was some complication in the source which led to con- 
fusion on their part. Evidently Saul divided his time at this stage of 
proceedings between Geba and Gibeah. It is a priori unlikely that Saul 
should have remained at Geba when his own home was at Gibeah, only three 
miles away, as we shall presently see. Moreover, one of the main elements 
in his tactical plan was the defense of Gibeah, as shown by I Sam. 13.,. 
Besides, apart from the desirability of defending his home and ‘‘capital,’’ 
was the fact that the fortress on Tell el-F'Gl had an almost unequalled control 
of the country around, and was thus an indispensable part of a line of defense 
running along the Wadi es-Sweinit.—To return to I Sam. 14., the reading 
‘‘Gibeah,’’ found in the Hebrew text, is thus preferable from the point of 
view of the context, and Migron is the only difficulty. We may perhaps solve 
the problem by supposing that Migron lay southwest of Geba, and could thus 
be located bigsé hag-Gib‘ah, ‘‘in the uttermost part of (the district of) 
Gibeah.’’ However, this suggestion is not the only way out of our dilemma, 
since Saul may easily have shifted his headquarters once or twice during 
the operations. 

On the other hand, when we read in 14,, that the watchmen of Saul in 
Gibeah of Benjamin looked out and saw the Philistine host melting away in 
panic, we are practically compelled to place them at Tell el-Fal. From 
Geba it is impossible to see the movements of a large body on the other side 
of the wadi, to the west of Michmas. The latter is 200 feet lower than Geba, 
but the terrain rises rapidly to the west. Most significant is the fact that 
there is no place for a watch-tower at Jeba‘. Tell el-Fiil, however, rises 
more than 500 feet above Jeba‘ and had, besides, a fine watch-tower at 
this very time. From Tell el-Fal one may see the entire northern side of 
the Wadi es-Sweinit. Lrnper observes justly (SG 28) that Tell el-F'Gl is 


38 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


too remote for a clear view of ordinary human movements north of the 
Wadi es-Sweinit (more than four miles by air-line), but he forgets that the 
narrator had in mind the movements of a host of three thousand” chariots, 
six thousand horsemen, and footmen as numerous as the sand of the seashore 
(I Sam. 18,)! 

We are, therefore, unable to accept the current reconstructions of the 
sequence of events in the narrative I Sam. 13-14, which are best defended 
by Hacemeyer, loc. cit., after DALMAN, and by LinpER, SG 28, who treats 
the subject much more succinctly than usual, owing perhaps to its great 
difficulty. Kirren’s treatment in his Geschichte® II, 156 ff., is good in some 
respects, but is seriously vitiated by his view that both Tell el-Ffl and Jeba‘ 
were called by the two names Geba‘ and Gib‘ah. Nor is any reconstruction 
which attempts to solve the problem by eliminating Gibeah and supplanting 
it throughout with Geba possible. From our passage it is thus clear that 
Gibeah must have been situated near Geba, south of the Wadi es-Sweinit, 
in a location which commanded an extensive view to the north, and where 
there was a strong watch-tower, conditions better met by Tell el-F'Gl than. 
by any other point. 

I Kings 15,,.,. relates that the Israelite king Baasha (e. 910-886) fortified 
the town of Ramah, or perhaps rather built a fortress in it, in order to 
control the road to Jerusalem, and prevent Israelites from visiting the 
Temple, always a sore point with the northern kings. Apparently Ramah, 
on the southern boundary of Israel, was intended to be a base for further 
military operations against Judah. The Jewish king, Asa, did not feel him- 
self strong enough to undertake offensive operations against Baasha, so he 
instigated the king of Damascus to attack the northern border of Israel and 
divert the former’s attention from Judah. Meanwhile Asa levied the men 
of Judah and dismantled the fortress at Ramah, carrying the stones and 
wood away to Geba of Benjamin (so the text) and Mizpah. Since no 
further military operations are reported, though a desultory conflict seems 
to have gone on, it is clear that Asa’s coup was defensive in purpose, not 
offensive. Had he cherished offensive plans, he would certainly have placed 
his own garrison in Ramah, which was in Israelite territory. To remove 
building materials from Ramah and erect new fortresses to the north, in 
hostile country, would have been a dangerous, as well as futile exploit. 
Just as Baasha’s obvious purpose was to threaten Jerusalem, and make 
Asa’s position uncomfortable, if not untenable, smce Ramah was less than 


*M here offers FON Deroy, ‘‘thirty thousand,’’ a reading supported by G, but 
since the number of chariots in such enumerations is regularly less than that of 
horsemen, we should read ‘‘three thousand,’’ crediting the increase in the number to 
some patriotic, but credulous scribe with poor eyesight. 


IDENTIFICATION OF THE SITE WITH GIBEAH 39 


three hours’ walk from Ophel, so Asa’s intention was clearly to defend his 
capital from sudden attack, an ever-present contingency for a city situated 
only a few miles from enemy territory. We must, accordingly, look for 
both fortresses on Jewish soil, in positions of vantage commanding the 
northern approaches to the city. By far the most suitable points are Nebi 
Samwil and Tell el-FGl; we must simply correct ‘‘Geba of Benjamin’’ to 
- ““Gibeah of Benjamin.’’'® Garrisons on these summits, the highest in 
Benjamin, can overlook all the approaches to Jerusalem from the north; 
Tell el-FGl commanded the direct road from Mount Ephraim to Jerusalem, 
as well as the more eastern route by way of Geba and Anathoth, while Nebi 
Samwil commanded the western road by way of Gibeon. Our results seem 
to be confirmed by the results of our excavations. The third fortress 
showed every sign of hasty construction, as pointed out in detail above, in 
chapter III. The old walls of the second fortress were not properly cleared, 
but there was left a layer of broken stone and débris between the top of the 
lower walls and the upper walls, so that the piers collapsed soon after the 
earth was cleared away from their foundations. The old outer wall on the 
south, which was found to be leaning badly, was supported by a buttress 
wall set at right angles against it, containing large melek? stones, unknown 
to the construction of the first two fortresses. Moreover, these meleki blocks 
had been hewn smooth on one or two sides, yet here the smooth side was 
turned in a haphazard direction, and the wall containing these stones was 
buried in the earth. The conclusion is inescapable, that these stones and 
others like them, later utilized in the construction of the fourth fortress, 
were brought from another fortress. In short, the third fortress was built, 
as pointed out above, during the beginning of the Divided Kingdom, by a 
king of Judah who brought building stone and timber from another fortress 
to build one of his own, and who obviously built in great haste. No 
anepigraphic confirmation of a theory could be more exact.'* 

Recently ALT and BAUMANN have tried to prove that Mizpah (Mizpeh) 
was situated at Tell en-Nasbeh, just west of the Nablus road, two miles 
north-northwest of er-Ram, ancient Ramah. As this question is too comph- 
eated to be discussed in full here, it will be considered in an appendix 
(q. v.), where the writer tries to establish the old equation Mizpah = Nebi 


*% This correction is supported by G though it is true that its confirmation is of little 
weight in such a case. 

“ After the foregoing was written, I discovered that I had been anticipated in this 
view by KirreL, Geschichte’, Vol. II, pp. 360-1. Kirren also identifies Mispah with 
Nebi Samwil and ‘‘Geba’’ with Tell el-Fal, though the confusion between Geba and 
Gibeah exhibited throughout his work renders this last agreement of comparatively little 
value. Much more important is his clear apprehension of the strategic considerations 
involved, when he observes that Asa’s operations were strictly defensive, and can under 
no circumstances be taken to indicate success in offensive warfare on Asa’s part. 


40 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


Samwil. According to these scholars, who have unquestionably succeeded 
in making a plausible case, Asa built a fortress at Mizpah to defend terri- 
tory just wrested from Israel, and command the main road from the north. 
Geba they suppose was fortified in order to command the pass over the 
Wadi es-Sweinit. Quite aside from the strategic considerations involved, 
which hardly fit the narrative, is the fact that Asa could hardly have chosen 
two points less prominent than Tell en-Nasbeh and Jeba‘. The view east- - 
ward from Tell en-Nasbeh is completely blocked by a ridge rising just east 
of the road to a considerably greater height. Since Jeba‘ is several hundred 
feet lower down, it would be possible for the Israelites to slip in between 
_ the two stations and actually reach Jerusalem without being observed, as 
the writer has assured himself by repeated visits. If Mizpah were really at 
Tell en-Nasbeh, it is very hard to understand why Asa removed the fortress 
from Ramah, which has a much finer view than the Tell, being besides on 
a line with Geba, instead of being miles to the northeast. In the appendix 
we will show that, on wholly different grounds, Mizpah cannot be identified 
with Tell en-Nasbeh, but almost certainly lay on Nebi Samwil. This being . 
the case, we must follow G and correct ‘‘Geba’’ to ‘‘Gibeah,’’ as otherwise 
the most important road to the south would be unprotected. 

We are now ready to turn from Gibeah of Benjamin to Gibeah of Saul. 
Since it has been shown that Gibeah received the addition ‘‘of Benjamin”’ 
in order to distinguish it clearly in pronunciation from Geba (G@éva‘ and _ 
Giv‘ah are very hard to distinguish in rapid conversation), there is no diffi- 
culty in supposing that, when tribal lines became faint and the monarchy 
was established, the name ‘‘Gibeah of Benjamin’’ was automatically changed 
to ‘‘Gibeah of Saul.’’ Naturally the latter name could not have been used 
. until after Saul’s death, when Gibeah’s chief title to fame lay in the memory 
of its great hero. But we must consider our data for the location of Gibeah 
of Saul independently; if the results coincide with those for the Benjamite 
Gibeah, our thesis may be regarded as proved. 

The data furnished in Samuel for the location of Gibeah of Saul are not 
alone sufficient ; fortunately, however, we have the clearest possible evidence 
from later periods. For this reason we shall consider the latter first, 
returning afterwards to the earlier source. 

In the famous description of the Assyrian advance on Jerusalem, given 
by Isaiah, Ch. 10,,..,, Gibeah of Saul is mentioned, being expressly distin- 
guished from the more northerly Geba. Since the passage is fully treated 
in Appendix IV, ‘‘The Assyrian March on Jerusalem, Is. X, 28-32,’’ we 
may restrict ourselves here to giving our rendering of v. 29 ff.: 


- Hi * Ramah is affrighted, 
Gibeah of Saul has fled. 
Raise high thy voice, daughter of Gallim! 


IDENTIFICATION OF THE SITE WITH GIBEAH 41 


Listen, Laishah, Answer her, Anathoth! 
Yet today he will stand at Nob, 
Shaking his hand (in threat) Against the hill of Zion’s daughter. 


As shown by F‘fpERLIN and DAuLMAN, the ancient eastern road, which the 
Assyrians followed, led from Scopus (Ras el-Mesarif = Nob) to Geba 
(Jeba‘) between Tell el-FGl and Hirbet Ka‘ktl, and some distance to the 
west of Hizmeh. I shall show below that Gallim is probably Hirbet Ka‘kal, 
while Laishah has been plausibly identified with el-‘Isawiyeh. It is, accord- 
ingly, clear that to the prophet, who, of course, knew the country intimately, 
Gibeah of Saul lay south of Ramah, north of the group Hirbet Ka‘kdal- 
‘Anata-el-‘Isawiyeh, and still farther north of Nob. The grouping shows 
that it was associated with Ramah rather than with Anathoth, and points 
irresistibly to Tell el-Ful or to an immediately adjoining ruin. The sug- 
gestions brought by others, such as Hirbet ‘Addaseh = Adasa (cf. SG 
124 f.), Hirbet el-Hawanit, Hirbet el-‘Adaseh, Hirbet es-Sikkeh, Hirbet 
es-Soma‘, etc., are all inadmissible, either because the ruins are too late and 
unimportant, or because they are impossibly situated for a pre-Roman town, 
besides showing no marks of Israelite occupation. 

The next mention of the place brings us down into Roman times. In his 
Wars, V, 2, 1, Josephus relates that Titus marched southeast from Gophna 
(Jifnah) toward Jerusalem, and encamped in the Valley of Thorns near 
the village of Gabath Saul (otparoredeverar kata Tov i7d “lovdaiwy ratpiws *Axkav- 
Gov atA@va Kadovpevov mpos Tin Kopn TaBad SaotrA Aeyouevy, oynpaiver d€ TovTo 
Addov Laovrov, duéywv aro tv ‘lepocorAvpwv doov ard TpiaKovta otadiwv), Which is 
explained as meaning ‘‘ Hill of Saul,’’ located thirty stadia from Jerusalem. 
Now, as is abundantly clear from the metrological material furnished by 
Josephus, the historian means by ‘‘thirty stadia’’ a distance equivalent to 
an hour’s walk, i. e., a parasang. So he calls Mount Tabor thirty stadia 
high because.it requires an hour to make the ascent. Since Titus was 
marching from Gophna to Scopus, it is obvious that he must have followed 
the Roman road which still leads from Jifnah to the Damascus Gate. The 
northern terraces of Tell el-Fal, where the Roman village lay, are about 
six kilometres from the Damascus Gate, by road, or in other words, just an 
hour’s moderately fast walk. If Josephus had the distances given by the 
Roman mile-stones in mind, the exact equivalence of 5.76 km. for thirty 
stadia is perhaps even more exact. As NesTuE recognizes (ZDPV XXXIV, 
98) Tell el-FGl is the only possible identification for the Gabath Saul of 
Josephus. 

In another place (Ant. V, 2, 8) where he describes the atrocity of Gibeah, 
Josephus places Geba (Gibeah) of Benjamin only twenty stadia from 
Jerusalem. Since this cannot possibly refer to Geba, which is more than 


42 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


twice as far, it is evidently only a careless estimate of the distance. I have 
assured myself by repeated experiments that a fast walker requires about 
forty-five minutes from the Damascus Gate to the top of the fell, so the 
possibility of variation in a free estimate of this kind is clear. At all events, 
there was no ancient town of any consequence whatsoever on Hirbet 
es-Sdma‘, and Sa‘ fat is wholly unsuited to be the site of a Jewish town, so 
here again we come to Tell el-FGl. Hacmmryer points out (ZDPV XXXII, 
11) that Josephus in one place reckons the distance of Gibeon from Jeru- 
salem as fifty stadia, in another as forty, an estimate which is just as inexact 
as that of twenty for Gibeah. . 

St. Jerome, in his commentary on Hosea 5,, places Gibeah (Gabaa), the 

‘home of Saul, near Ramah. He evidently refers to the same site in his 

description of the pilgrimage of Paula, VI, when he says that she came by 
the road from Beth-horon, having Ajalon (Yalo) and Gibeon on her right, 
after which she passed Gibeah of Benjamin, and entered Jerusalem near 
the mausoleum of Helena. Since the old Roman road to Beth-horon joins 
the road leading north to Neapolis (Nablus) nearly opposite Tell el-Fal, it 
is clear that Paula was referring to the latter, then wrbs usque ad solum 
diruta, ‘‘a town destroyed to the ground.’’ Jerome quotes the same phrase 
in his commentary to Zephaniah, 1,,, where he calls Gibeah a town usque ad 
fundamenta diruta (cf. THomsen, Loca sancta, p. 46). Since there is little 
or nothing Byzantine at Tell el-FUl, everything pointing to an abandonment 
of the site during the first century of our era, these statements hold per- 
fectly, and make it certain that tradition still remembered the identity of the 
site as late as the fifth century. 

If we turn back now to the Book of Samuel, and compare the references 
to Gibeah of Saul found there, it becomes clear that Tell el-FUl suits all the 
passages perfectly, even if they cannot be used as arguments for our locali- 
zation by themselves. From the narrative of Saul’s anointing, in I Sam. 
9-10, it is impossible to get an exact idea of the location of the Gibeah where 
his home was, though, since some scholars have interpreted it in such a way 
as to secure supposititious evidence, a special appendix (App. II, ‘‘ Ramah of 
Samuel’’) has been devoted to the topography of Saul’s journey in’search 
of his father’s asses. ; 

The narrative of the war against the Philistines carried on by Saul and 
Jonathan, | Sam. 13-14, has already been discussed above; as pointed out, 
both Gibeah and Geba are mentioned, the importance of Gibeah being 
largely due to the fact that it was Saul’s home. After a careful study of 
these chapters it is hard to see any room for doubt as to the identity of 
Gibeah of Benjamin with the home of Saul. The scattered references in 
Samuel to Saul’s residence in Gibeah of Saul (I Sam. 10,,, 114, 15,,, 22.) 
do not help us, since they are all too vague. The last mentioned passage, 


= 


IDENTIFICATION OF THE SITE WITH GIBEAH 43 


22,, is interesting because it proves the existence of a high-place in Gibeah 
of Saul; the text must be read 7939 SWNT ONAN Aysia awy Dw 
YW VIM) adopting 733 with certain LXX recensions (see the com- 
mentators ad loc.) in place of M ;7/33, and rendered, And Saul was sitting 
in Gibeah under the tamarisk at the high-place, with his javelin in his hand. 
The final clause shows clearly that the verb must be translated ‘‘was 
sitting,’’ not ‘‘was dwelling,’’ and accordingly does not tell us where Saul’s 
house was located. 

Let us then resume briefly the arguments for the identity of Gibeah of 
Saul and Gibeah of Benjamin and their location at Tell el-Fal. The 
episode of the Levite and his concubine shows that Gibeah of Benjamin was 
situated south of Ramah and southwest of Geba. The account of the war 
between Saul and the Philistines indicates that Gibeah of Benjamin and 
Gibeah of Saul were identical, each name occurring to the exclusion of the 
other, and proves that Gibeah lay south of the Philistine positions on the 
north of the Wadi es-Sweinit, and was a commanding site, from which 
watchmen could see the retreat of the Philistines toward the west of 
Michmas. The record of the contest between Asa and Baasha shows that 
Gibeah of Benjamin was a strong, easily fortified post, not far from Ramah, 
and on a line with Mizpah, modern Nebi Samwil. Isaiah’s vivid description 
of the Assyrian march on Jerusalem indicates that Gibeah of Saul lay south 
of Ramah and northwest of Anathoth, to the right of the Assyrian line of 
march from Geba to Nob. The account of Titus’s march in Josephus proves 
that Gibeah of Saul lay on the road from Gophna to Jerusalem, that is, on 
the Roman road running south at the foot of Tell el-Ftul, and at precisely 
the distance from Jerusalem that the latter is. Jerome’s account of Paula’s 
pilgrimage points unmistakably to the same location for Gibeah of Benjamin. 
Finally, the archaeological discoveries at the site prove that Tell el-Fal 
was occupied at precisely the periods indicated by the external literary 
evidence, that it was a most important place, and that there was a strong 
fort, or migdal, on the summit during nearly the whole of the Israelite and 
Jewish occupation of the land. At about the time of Asa the fortress was 
hastily rebuilt, and some time later it was burned. In short, no topo- 
graphical point in Palestine is more certainly fixed than the identity of Tell 
el-Ffil with Gibeah of Benjamin and Saul. 


bf 


V. HISTORY OF GIBEAH FROM ALL SOURCES. 


Thanks to our excavations we are able to control and supplement the Old 
Testament sources in a most satisfactory way. True, there are many points 
on which our work at Tell el-F'al has failed to bring clarity; but this is 
the case with all excavations on Palestinian soil, mainly because of the lack 
of epigraphic monuments. If, then, we may be permitted to interpret our 
results in the light of the information which may be derived, directly or’ 
indirectly, from the Bible, the following picture cannot be far wrong. 

As shown in our study of the ceramic finds, not a single typical Late 
Bronze Age sherd appeared, either on the hill, or in the lowest stratum of 
the fortress. The sherds of the first period are so similar to those of the 
second that it proved impossible to distinguish between them, and this 
pottery is throughout characteristic of the closing phase of the Bronze Age, 
when foreign pottery was no longer imported into Central Palestine, as well 
as of the initial phase of the Iron Age. In other words, our pottery belongs 
to the period between 1300 and 1000 (as recognized by no less an authority 
than Pére VINCENT), and rather to the latter part of this period than to 
the earlier. It is, therefore, practically impossible to assume a Canaanite 
settlement at Gibeah before the Israelite occupation, especially if this event 
took place about 1230 B.C., as maintained by the writer.’ 

The study of the ancient settlements in Palestine shows conclusively that 
the Canaanites and other pre-Israelite occupants of the land very rarely 
built towns far from a flowing spring or stream. Practically every pre- 
Israelite site so far discovered is situated near running water; towns like 
Jerusalem, Gibeon, Kirjath-jearim, Chephirah, Beeroth, all proved by the 
Old Testament and the potsherds to have been Canaanite settlements, are 
cases in point. With the coming of the Hebrews, however, the situation was 
changed. New centres arose at Bethel, Gibeah, and other places where 
running water was not available, and cisterns thus became a necessity. 
Prior to the Israelite conquest? the hill country was but sparsely peopled, 


1 For the present see JPOS I, 49-79. A much more detailed discussion will appear in 
the near future. It may be observed that the terminus a quo is probably 1250-1240 B. C. 
The date 1230 is also accepted by Cook (Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. I, p. 166). 

? Note that we distinguish sharply between ‘‘Hebrew’’ and ‘‘Israelite’’ occupa- 
tion. The former was a gradual, unorganized movement into the country, which 
continued for some three or four hundred years before the Israelite conquest. The 
Hebrew settlers in Palestine before the thirteenth century pursued a pastoral vocation, 
just as described in the biblical traditions of the Patriarchs. It cannot be accidental 
that the Israelite centres in the hill-country were not established until the end of the 


HISTORY OF GIBEAH FROM ALL SOURCES 45 


and was largely covered with bush and forests of dwarf oak and scrub pine. 
The open spaces were mainly devoted to grazing, a fact which explains how 
the first Hebrew immigrants could roam so freely through the country, as 
faithfully recounted in biblical tradition. With the definitive conquest of 
Canaan by Joshua and the rapid rise of Hebrew towns and villages in all 
parts of the highlands, a new era began in the country. The activity of the 
new settlers must have been intense, in order to dig the numberless cisterns 
required, and plant the olive orchards and vineyards upon which the inhabi- 
tants of the hills depended for their prosperity. 

It is under such circumstances that we must picture the foundation and 
early history of Gibeah. It is impossible to fix the exact date of the founda- 
tion of the village; we shall not be far off if we place it about 1230 B. C., 
or a little later, and suppose that the fortress was built about 1200 B.C. 
The earliest village lay, as pointed out above, on the broad northeastern 
terraces of the hill, on the opposite side from Jerusalem. Since there was 
thus a strong Canaanite city only four miles to the south, it was necessary 
to have a watch-tower on the summit of the hill, between Gibeah and Jeru- 
. salem, in order to warn the men of Gibeah of the possible approach of foes 
from the south. Its situation made Gibeah an outpost of Israel toward the 
south, and thus exposed it peculiarly to Canaanite influence. In fact, when 
we recall that the whole district east of the watershed road was occupied by 
the Horite® confederation of Gibeon-Beeroth-Kirjath-Chephirah, we realize 
that Gibeah was actually an Israelite enclave in Canaanite territory. Very 
probably its population was as mixed as its situation would lead us to infer. 
Possibly this fact may explain its moral depravity, which aroused such 
horror among the Hebrews. 

The first known episode in the history of Gibeah is the civil war with the 
rest of Israel in which it became involved, and which led to its destruction, 
as narrated in Jud. 19-20. Many scholars have regarded this remarkable 
document as a forgery of the post-exilic age, but such hypercriticism is 
uncalled for, since, as will be seen, the tradition is plausible in itself, and is, 
besides, supported by our archaeological results. Before proceeding to 
relate the story of the war, it will be necessary to consider our document, its 
date, literary character, and general trustworthiness. 4 

The most elaborate recent treatments of our source are by ARNoLD* and 
Burney.’ The standard critical commentary is, of course, Moorn’s, which 


Late Bronze and later. In general, the biblical tradition is much more trustworthy than 
it is often given credit for being; on the other hand, the conservative interpretation is 
fully as unfair to it as the standard ‘‘liberal.’’ 

’ Cf. for the present JSOR VII, 5, n. 3. 

*Ephod and Ark, Cambridge, 1917, pp. 95-122. 

5 The Book of Judges’, pp. 442-494. 


46 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


will long retain its fundamental value. There is a most glaring discrepancy 
between the dates assigned our source by different critics. WELLHAUSEN 
places it in the age of the Chronicler, while ARNoup feels that the nucleus 
of our document, which he tries to restore, was written during the reign of 
Solomon, only the glosses, which he weeds out somewhat ruthlessly, being 
post-exilic. Middle views are held by Moore and Burnuy, the former 
referring the nucleus to J and the midrashic expansion to a contemporary 
of the Chronicler, while the latter supposes that our document is composite, 
consisting of two sources, both dependent upon J, as well as of redactional 
glosses from the post-exilic period. The present writer believes that Moore 
and BurRNEY are essentially correct in their theory, though the attempt of 
the latter to split our document into two sources is but little more successful 
than previous efforts of the same kind. 

In our opinion the story of the Levite and his Concubine and of Micah 
and the Danites are popular tales or sagas, handed down orally, and first 
committed to writing in the seventh century B. C., after the Assyrian con- 
quest of the Northern Kingdom (Jud. 18,,). The story of the Levite, 
especially, bears every trace of its folkloristic character. The introduction, 
And it came to pass in the days when there was no king in Israel that a 
certain man named Micah , 1s in perfect folk-tale style. Then we have 
an unusually large number of those circulating motives which are the best 
proof of genuine folklore, for example: the sodomitic assault on the guest 
(as in Gen. 19, ,); the cutting up of the body and distribution (cf. I Sam. 
11, and the Osiris legend) ; the fight and ambush (as in Jos. 7,_; and 8, 5.) ; 
the rape of the Shilonite maidens (well treated recently by MorGENSTERN, 
from the standpoint of later Jewish survivals). When the scribe of the J 
School who first wrote the stories down came to relate them, he naturally 
employed the familiar phrases which he had so often employed in copying 
the J source in Genesis and Joshua.® This eliminates the supposed necessity 
of explaining the many reminiscences of J by the methods of text and 
literary criticism alone. The methods of folklore analysis, which GUNKEL 
has taught us to use, are now much more efficacious. . 

The suggestion formerly popular, that our story is marked by hatred of 
Saul, is wholly superfluous, as well pointed out by ArNoup. That the saga 
is of Benjamite origin is indicated by the brave resistance of the Benjamites 
against a foe of overwhelmingly superior numbers, as well as by the rape 
of the Shilonite maidens, which an Israelite popular version of the story 
would never have admitted. This tale is just as obviously told from a 
Benjamite point of view as the rape of the Sabine maidens is from a Roman. 





‘This natural explanation entirely avoids the necessity of assuming direct literary 
dependence, to say nothing of actual borrowing of the stories from literary sources, as 
BuRNEY maintains. 


HISTORY OF GIBEAH FROM ALL SOURCES AY 


Nor is the account of the destruction of Jabesh Gilead based on the execra- 
tion of Saul’s memory, involving his friends, the men of Jabesh, in the 
opprobrium. As pointed out by CLERMONT-GANNEAU (Archaeological 
Researches, Vol. II, p. 80), there was an old connubium between Benjamin 
and Machir (i.e., Gilead), mentioned I Chron. 7,;, a fact which explains 
both why Jabesh refused to send its contingent to aid in punishing 
Benjamin, and why it later sent to Benjamin for help against the 
Ammonites. 

Our story has apparently been subjected to an editorial revision in the 
fourth century (time of the Chronicler), but this has certainly not been 
so drastic as ARNOLD assumes. ARNOLD’s method is to refer every obscure 
topographic statement, big number, and corrupt passage to the unfortunate 
glossator, quite regardless of the old principle of difficilior lectio. The 
remainder is naturally perfect, though colorless Hebrew, quite good enough 
for the Solomonic age, when, as he justly maintains, Hebrew literary style 
was probably developed. But it is incredible that the original document 
was really so bald and uninteresting. When the corrupt passages are cor- 
rected and the topography explained, the need for this drastic operation 
disappears. Nor need one resort to double sources to explain the prolixity 
and redundancy of certain passages, since a certain amount of redundancy 
is characteristic of folklore, and the scribe who set the story down on paper 
(i..e., papyrus) doubtless followed his oral source rather closely. Our scribe 
was certainly not a master of style, as shown by his almost slavish imitation 
of J’s language, wherever similar situations give him the opportunity. It 
is, however, still likely that the story has been somewhat reworked in ch. 20, 
in order to provide a case of the operation of theocratic government in pre- 
royal Israel for the edification of post-exilic Jewry. But, since the related 
story of Micah has not even been subjected to a Deuteronomie revision, to 
say nothing of a redaction under post-exilic priestly auspices, it is clear 
that there must have been an unusually strong suggestion in the document 
as first written down, a temptation which the post-exile seribe could not 
resist. What was the tertiwm comparations which induced this seribe to 
utilize the opportunity offered him in order to preach a sermon on the 
virtues and advantages of theocratic government? 

The solution is, I believe, furnished us by Jud. 20,,, which mentions the 
high-priest of the time, and calls him Phinehas. While the additional state- 
ment that this Phinehas was the son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron may 
easily be an erroneous gloss, since the name was characteristic of the Aaronid 
line, it is perilous hyper-criticism to consider the name Phinehas itself as 
a late insertion in the text, in other words, as a forgery. I am convinced 
that these scribes seldom or never invented their facts, however much lati- 
tude they may have allowed themselves in interpreting and modifying them. 


48 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


The point of departure for the post-exilic editor was the réle played by the 
high-priest, Phinehas, who was at the head of the anti-Benjamite movement, 
and probably directed the military operations by means of his oracles. 
The late editor introduced the terms qahal and ‘edah in describing the 
Israelite ‘‘congregation,’’ but he did not invent his basie facts. But what 
Phinehas was this? Before we can reply, we will have to consider the date 
of our episode, for which we have valuable indirect hints to supply the lack 
of explicit information. 

There are four principal lines of evidence for the date, and all agree in 
pointing us to the second half of the twelfth century B. C., preferably about 
1130-1120 B.C. The terminus ante quem is, of course, about 1200 B. C., 
since we cannot on any theory place the Benjamite war less than a genera- 
tion after the Conquest, and after Eleazar’s death. The terminus post 
quem is the accession of Eli as high-priest shortly before 1100.7 First of 
all, we note that our episode was regarded by the redactor as later than 
the Danite migration, since he placed his account of it after the latter. As 
the writer has shown,* this movement of the Danites cannot be placed before 
the Song of Deborah, that is, before 1170 B. C., though it probably occurred 
soon afterward, presumably about 1150, when the Philistines were beginning 
their expansion and forcing the Hebrews into the hills. On this ground 
alone, a date of 1150 or later for our episode is rendered likely. . Secondly, 
our source assigns the high-priest a dominating réle in Central Palestine, 
like Eli, who is said to have been a Sofet (I Sam. 4,,) over Israel. Now, in 
the records preserved for us by the Book of Judges there is otherwise no 
hint that a high-priest was strong enough to claim this title of honor. We 
are now, however, able to trace a gradual development of the power of the 
priesthood, enabling it finally to wield temporal power. Since Eli is uni- 
formly depicted as a feeble, though excellent soul, it can hardly be he to 
whom the marked increase in the influence of the high-priest was due, but 
rather a predecessor. Unfortunately, we do not know the latter’s name, 
but we may plausibly infer that it was Phinehas,’ since the latter seems to 
have been a commanding figure, to judge from the energy displayed in con- 
nection with the Benjamite war, and the fact that tradition retained his ~ 
name so long. It is even probable that our Phinehas was an immediate 
predecessor of Eli, since the latter seems to have inherited power rather 
than to have won it by his own energy. From this consideration, therefore, 


7 See the writer’s forthcoming treatment of the history and chronology of the period 


of the Judges. 

§ Cf. JPOS I, 56. 

® Egyptian names show a tendency to recur in successive generations of the Aaronid 
house. Phinehas son of Eli was presumably named after his grandfather, himself 
perhaps grandson of Phinehas son of Eleazar. 


HISTORY OF GIBEAH FROM ALL SOURCES 49 


we will be inclined to place the date of our episode between 1150 and 1100, 
preferably about the middle of the interval. Our third argument may be 
drawn from the fact that the paramount role is played by a high-priest and 
not by a secular champion or Sofet. It is precisely during the period 
immediately preceding the appearance of Gideon, that is, before 1120-1100,'° 
that we know of no available champion but the high-priest. Fourthly, the 
destruction of Gibeah cannot have occurred very long before the time of 
Saul, whose family had only taken up its residence at Gibeah shortly before, 
as shown by the fact that the family sepulchre was still at Zelah, an 
unidentified town to the west of Gibeah, possibly Beit Hannina (cf. II Sam. 
21,, and Appendix II, n. 5). On the other hand, it must have occurred 
long enough before so that time had erased the keen edges of Israelite recol- 
lection. All these indications are amply confirmed by the evidence of 
pottery, which proves that the culture of Gibeah in the time of Saul is 
practically indistinguishable from that of the earlier town—except of course, 
that Saul’s fortress shows signs of greater wealth. The ceramic testimony 
precludes the passage of over a century from the destruction of Gibeah to 
the erection of Saul’s fortress there. Since Saul began to reign about 
1030 B. C., the earlier town cannot well have fallen before 1130 B. C., and 
probably its fall took place somewhat later, but before 1120 B.C. 

In order to eliminate the unhistorical elements in our tradition, which 
had an oral history of fully four centuries, if not more, before being com- 
mitted to writing, we must naturally excise the circulating folkloristic 
motives pointed out above. The remainder is doubtless essentially historical. 
To this historical nucleus we may provisionally refer the outrage on the 
Levite’s concubine (disregarding the suggestion of sodomy, which comes 
from the category of Canaanite abominations); the ensuing war against 
Benjamin with a Yahwistic, pro-Levite background; the defensive alliance 
of Eastern Benjamin; the burning of Gibeah; and the subsequent punish- 
ment of Jabesh Gilead. The burning of Gibeah is confirmed by the 
excavations, and the other events are so reasonable in themselves and so 
well attested by our source that scepticism is not only gratuitous, but is also 
unscientific. Moreover, the seizure of Gibeah by an ambuseade is highly 
probable, though the folkloristic coloring of the description, as well as the 
reminiscences of the Ai story, make it likely that our version of the event is 
embellished. 

We are thus justified in regarding the following sketch of the episode as 
substantially correct. After the atrocity perpetrated on the Levite’s mis- 
tress the latter used all his influence with his fellow Levites of Mount 
Ephraim, where Shiloh lay, to avenge the dishonor. The high-priest, 


For this date see the treatment forthcoming elsewhere. 


50 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


Phinehas (II), also took it up, and the men of Ephraim and Manasseh were 
aroused to vigorous action. Whether all Gilead, or only Jabesh, declined 
to aid in this righteous vengeance is not certain, but the latter alternative 
is the more probable. It is hardly likely, however, that the-tribes of Galilee 
were involved in the movement, which probably affected only Central Pales- 
tine. There is nothing inherently unreasonable in the traditional account 
of events, according to which the first attacks were launched from Mizpah 
(Nebi Samwil),"* since the latter was not in the territory of Israelite 
Benjamin, but in the middle of the Horite confederacy, and hence in a 
sense neutral ground, because the Canaanites were hardly in a position to 
take sides in the civil war between two factions of their Hebrew overlords. 
On the other hand, the shift of the base from Mizpah to Bethel is rather 
a suspicious detail to have been remembered for over four hundred years, 
and is better not stressed. The discussion of the tactical details involved in 
our version of events has been given in the preceding section, and need not 
be repeated. It is hardly necessary to observe that all the numbers are too 
large; Israel’s four hundred thousand is presumably exaggerated at least © 
fifty times, while Benjamin’s twenty-six thousand may safely be reduced 
ten times, but such over-estimates are no worse than the contemporary 
exaggerations of Josephus, and yet our numbers have been subjected for 
more than four centuries to the processes of legendary accretion ! 

When, however, our tradition supposes that the Benjamites were prac- 
tically exterminated, we may call a halt, nor need we take the folkloristic 
mode of providing the Benjamite remnant with new wives without a large 
grain of salt. On the other hand, it is quite likely that the number of males 
surviving after the debacle in the allied towns of Benjamin was actually 
about six hundred, since this number is large enough to people six respect- 
able villages. The supposed lack of females is perhaps due to the fact 
that the enraged Israelites did really massacre the women and children of 
Gibeah; the women of the neighboring villages were presumably in safe 
hiding in the inaccessible ravines of Eastern Benjamin. Tradition, how- 
ever, magnified the slaughter of the females, and consequently had to pro- 
vide wives for the male survivors, which was arranged for in characteristic 
folklore fashion, by adapting the nearest romantic motive available. 

With the destruction of the first town, the history of Gibeah is a blank 
for a century, when it emerges again into fame as the home of the first 
king of Israel, Saul, of sombre destiny. As noted above, Saul’s family came 
from the neighboring village of Zelah; it is quite possible that Saul’s father, 
Kish, was the first of his family to move to the deserted site—for after so 


“It is, of course, possible that Mizpah was introduced into the narrative because 
popular tradition took a rendezvous at Mizpah to be the prerequisite to every joint 
martial undertaking in Central Palestine, 


HISTORY OF GIBEAH FROM ALL SOURCES dl 


terrible a catastrophe it must have been long considered as under the curse 
of Yahweh. 

As pointed out in the preceding section, Gibeah played an important réle 
in the Philistine war, when it served as Saul’s headquarters for a time, and 
its commanding watch-tower enabled him to follow military operations at 
a distance. The fortress of the second period, which we excavated, also 
served in all probability ‘as Saul’s residence; it was, at all events, consider- 
ably larger than the later fortress which rose above its ruins. The massive 
staircase implies that there was a capacious second story, where Saul may 
have lived. The amount of fine pottery found in the débris of this period 
also indicates a certain measure of rustic luxury, which is confirmed by the 
fragments of about thirty cooking pots, all of substantially identical dimen- 
sions. In the store-rooms of the ground-floor were kept large pithoi full 
of wine, oil, and grain; an iron plough-tip suggests that farming tools and 
supplies were also stored in them, while numerous fragments of querns, 
rubbing stones, spindle whorls, etc., bear witness to the practice of the 
homely domestic arts. 

It is not our province here to trace the various fortunes of Saul or to 
pass again in review the passages mentioning Gibeah in connection with 
him, since these references have been amply discussed above. From them it 
is clear that Gibeah remained Saul’s residence, and hence in a sense his 
home until his death. The hill of Tell el-FUl and its fortress must thus have 
witnessed the unhappy manifestations of Saul’s ingrowing melancholy, from 
his break with David until the last days, when he seems to have become a 
confirmed hypochondriac. From our fortress he may have departed on his 
last fatal march to defend the northern part of his kingdom against the 
Philistines. 

After the disaster on Mount Gilboa all Israel was open to the inroads of 
the hereditary foe, who probably sacked and abandoned the residence of 
Saul, as well as his fortress. The total absence of traces of destruction by 
fire in the second fortress suggests that no attempt to destroy the fortress 
was made. Presumably no resistance was offered, and so it was simply 
pillaged and then left. The collapse of the massive staircase might easily 
occur if the fortress was abandoned for a few years, and no attention was 
paid to the roof, neglect of which would allow the winter rains to pour 
through and do their work. It is not necessary to suppose that it lay in 
ruins for more than a few years, since it was too important a point on the 
new frontier between the warring kingdoms of David and Ishbaal to escape 
restoration. The structural indications show that it was rebuilt almost 
immediately after the collapse of the staircase, without any essential modi- 
fication of the plan. While their Philistine suzerains looked on compla- 
cently, the two rivals exhausted their strength for some seven long years of 


52 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


internecine conflict, until the weaker of the two, Ishbaal, succumbed to 
treachery, and David became king of all Israel. Whether the fortress of 
Saul was restored by Abner or by David is hard to say; we know only that 
the border passed through the district of Gibeon, in the phase described 
II Sam. 2,,, and therefore must have come very close to Gibeah. Since 
Gibeah was the home of the dynasty one would like to see here an expression 
of filial piety, but we can hardly get beyond a more or less plausible guess. 
As shown above, the manner.in which the restoration was carried out was 
so careless and perfunctory that we must assume a military object; otherwise 
the old staircase should surely have been restored. 

Whether rebuilt by Saul’s son or by his foe, the restored fortress had but 
a brief history; after seven years of inglorious rule Ishbaal was assassinated 
and David united the two halves of Israel.‘ Gibeah no longer possessed 
any value, either for sentimental or for military reasons, so the fortress sank 
into gradual ruin (IIB), without a trace of fire or other agency of sudden 
destruction. It now lay in ruins for at least a century, and when we study 
the débris of the following fortress (III) we see that this century witnessed 
a complete transformation in the material culture of the land, to judge 
from the ceramic index alone. This index agrees remarkably well with 
the external historical facts, for it is during the same hundred years 
that the reign of David and Solomon, the disruption of the kingdom, 
and the first rulers of Judah and Israel belong. During this period 
Israel was metamorphosed from a loose confederation of pastoral and 
agricultural clans in little contact with the outside world, to a typical Syrian 
state, through which great trade-routes ran, binding it most intimately to 
the prosperous centers of Syro-Phoenician commercial and industrial life. 
Material civilization could not but follow the direction of commercial devel- 
opment, where Phoenician influence was paramount. Small wonder, then, 
that there is a corresponding change in the fashion of pottery. 

The next appearance of Gibeah in history falls during the reign of Asa 
(cir. 915-875). As shown above, the Geba of Benjamin in I Kings 15,, 
should be read ‘‘Gibeah of Benjamin,’’ and refers to the fortress on Tell 
el-Fal. This identification is supported strongly by the archaeological 
indications, as already pointed out, and may be considered certain. Since 
the episode has already been fully discussed we need not go into detail here. 
The date falls somewhere in Baasha’s reign, 1. e., between about 911 and 
888, so the erection of the third fortress may be placed roughly about 
900 B.C. 

The destruction of the third fortress was followed by a restoration (IIIB), 
and the rebuilt mzgdal was in its turn destroyed by a great conflagration. 


“TIshbaal certainly reigned more than two years; see KiTTEeL, Geschiehte*, Vol. II, 
p.-1905 nil 


HISTORY OF GIBEAH FROM ALL SOURCES 3 


While there is no evidence to show exactly when or how these fortresses were 
destroyed, a suggestion may be made. The Jewish chronicles are always 
more detailed when there is an opportunity to describe a war between Judah 
and Israel, and it is probable that all the important conflicts between the 
sister-states are mentioned in our sources. After the first wars only two 
are mentioned: the defeat of Amaziah by Joash of Israel, about 790; and 
the so-called Syro-Ephraimitic war, when Pekah and Rezin of Damascus 
besieged Jehoahaz II (Ahaz) in Jerusalem (cir. 735 B. C.). Our fortress 
would naturally play a réle in both struggles, since it would be the first 
point to be attacked by the Israelites. One is, therefore, tempted to ascribe 
the destruction of IITA to Joash, in which case it remained intact for fully 
a century, from about 900 to after 800. Since Joash destroyed part of the 
north wall of Jerusalem, one would not expect him to leave a fortress like 
that of Gibeah untouched. We may then suppose that IIIB was built, or 
rather, restored, since the alterations made were small, by Amaziah’s son, 
Uzziah, the greatest king of Judah, who erected fortresses all around the 
borders of Judah (II Chron. 26, ,,). As already seen, the similar migdals 
of the Negeb may have been erected by him. The pottery of the third 
fortress, at least that discovered inside the fortress, probably belongs for 
the most part to the eighth century, including the MamSsat stamp (see 
above). 

If the construction of the migdal IIIB is due to Uzziah, its destruction 
was presumably due to the Syro-Ephraimitic war a generation later. At 
all events Uzziah would surely not have overlooked so promising a point 
for a fortress guarding the northern approach to the capital, and the 
invaders from the north would certainly not leave so threatening a post in 
their rear when laying siege to Jerusalem. The fight for the possession of 
our fortress was bitter, as is indicated by the numerous sling-shots, human 
skulls and bones, ete., found in the débris of IIIB, as well as by the unusual 
intensity of the fire which raged in it. A destruction by the Assyrians is 
not so likely, since the latter invaded Judah from the southwest in every 
certain instance known, thereby making the control of the post on Tell el-Ful 
valueless. 

That the fortress was not rebuilt by the last kings of Judah is natural. 
After the invasion of Tiglath-pileser in 733, Samaria was rapidly reduced 
to the status of an Assyrian province; in 722 the process was completed, 
and Israel remained a prefecture of Assyria down to after 630 B.C. 
During this century the Assyrians would never have permitted the Jews to 
build defensive works along the northern border, which could only be 
directed against them. 

From now on the fortress lay for centuries in ruins, until its reconstruc- 
tion in the Maccabaean age. Meanwhile, the old village of Gibeah, which 


54 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


had probably been abandoned since the fall of Saul’s house, came to life 
again, though on a very modest scale. When Isaiah (10,,) has occasion to 
mention the villages just north of Jerusalem, Gibeah of Saul is among 
them. During the generations when the site seems to have been abandoned, 
to judge from the absence of ninth century sherds from the old village site 
on the northern terraces, the name ‘‘Gibeah of Benjamin’’ apparently fell 
into desuetude, though the name was still scribally used. Among the people, 
however; the memories of Saul were so strongly attached to the site that 
when it was reoccupied the new village was called after his name, ‘‘ Hill of 
Saul’’—a last tribute to their fallen hero. 

In our trenches on the summit we found quantities of potsherds from the 
period between the seventh and the second centuries B.C., the Persian 
period being best represented. There was thus a hamlet on the site during 
the Persian period, though it is not mentioned in the post-exilic census of 
Ezra and Nehemiah. Presumably it was too small to have been considered 
in the list of towns and families said to have returned from the Exile, and 
remained too small to receive special attention later. It was only toward 
the end of this period that the terraces were occupied again, and the village 
became larger, though it certainly remained small in comparison with more 
fiourishing towns in the neighborhood. 

The inferior workmanship of the fourth fortress, which dates from the 
Hellenistic age, suggests the hand of local builders, without Greek training, 
and indeed without training of any sort in fortress building. It is hard to 
escape the conclusion that it dates from the beginning of the Maccabaean 
period, when the patriots were few in number, and valiantly striving to 
expel the hated foreigner from the Jewish hills. It were bootless to attempt 
to date it more exactly, since there is no basis for a rational conjecture. 
Commanding the Beth-horon road, up which Nicanor was advancing when 
he was encountered and defeated by Judas, Tell el-F'Gl had a considerable 
tactical importance, and it is quite possible that it was built about this 
time, rather than earlier. In any case it was probably built between 166 
and 161, during the career of Judas Maccabaeus. 

With the success of Hasmonaean arms and the extension of Jewish terri- 
tory, Tell el-Fal lost its strategic value and the fortress was abandoned.’ 
During the late Hellenistic or early Roman period, i. e., between 100 B. C. 
and 100 A. D., we find that houses were built around and upon the ruined 
fortress, whose walls were partly removed and partly utilized for them. 
Part of the glacis was removed for building purposes, and house walls were 
built against the rest. Grain-pits found excavated around the bottom of 
the glacis contained exclusively late Hellenistic or early Roman sherds. 
During this period not only the summit, but also the northern terraces were 
occupied, and cisterns recently cleaned by the inhabitants of Beit Hannina, 


HISTORY OF GIBEAH FROM ALL SOURCES oO. 


on the opposite side of the little depression to the north, proved to contain 
exclusively Hellenistic-Roman pottery, mostly thin hard ribbed ‘‘biscuit 
ware.’’ Toward the end of this period Titus encamped near the village, 
still called ‘‘Gibeah of Saul’’ (see above), on his march to besiege the 
doomed city of Jerusalem. Whether the inhabitants abandoned their home 
at this time is unknown; the village may have continued to be inhabited by 
Jews until the foundation of Aelia Capitolina, after which they were cer- 
tainly not allowed to live so near the city. At all events, the total absence 
of Roman-Byzantine potsherds proves that Gibeah was no longer occupied 
after the first century A. D. 

Gibeah had been abandoned for some centuries when St. Jerome passed 
by with the lady Paula, on their way to the Holy City. Being apprized by 
their dragoman that they were near the site of Gibeah, Jerome and his com- 
panion stopped to exchange reflections on the mutability of all things 
earthly. Certainly the site was not much different in appearance from 
what it is today, if we are to take Jerome’s usque ad solum diruta literally. 
How strongly the sight affected him is shown by another reference to the 
total destruction of Gibeah in one of his commentaries.—We have thus come 
to the end of Gibeah’s history, a rare illustration of close and constant agree- 
ment between archaeological and literary materials, where each source 


confirms and illustrates the other. 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 





Fig. 1. - Tell el-Fal from the northwest. 





EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOUL) 





Fig. 3. Westward view from Tell el-Fial. 





g. 4. Eastward view from Tell el-F al. 


57 


58 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 





Fig. 6. Masonry of First Fortress—north wall of C,. 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 59 





Fig. 7. Southwestern corner after removal of walls of Third Period. 





‘Fig. 8. South wall of A from north. Only Second Period visible, aside 
from the reconstruction of the upper part in the Third Period. 


60 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOUL) 





Fig. 9. West and north walls of A. 





Fig. 10. East wall of A showing apertures of Second Period. 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 61 





Fig. 11. West wall of A showing masonry of First and 
Second Periods. 





Fig. 12. North wall of C, showing apertures of Second Period. 


62 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 





Fig. 13. Lower steps of staircase from Second Period. 


Fig. 14. 





Stairease and walls of Second and Third Period above. 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 





Fig. 16. Top of northern glacis with walls behind it. 


63 


64 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


Fig. 18. 





Fig. 17. Northern glacis. 





Late Bronze or Early Iron Age revetment from Tell en-Nasbeh. 


EXCAVATIONS 


AT GIBEAH 


OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 





Fig. 20. Detail showing the secondary origin of buttress 
wall. 


65 


66 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (‘TELL EL-FCL) 





Fig, 22. Northwestern corner with west drain. 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 





Fig. 23. Pier C from Third Period. 





Fig. 24. Pier A from Third Period. 


67 


68 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL 


EL-FUL ) 





EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 69 





Fig. 27. Inside masonry of the Fourth Period. 





Fig. 28. Plastered wall of room from house built on 
southeastern edge of fortress in early Roman 
times; at bottom, top of the southern glacis. 


f 


70 


a 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 





Fig. 29. Hirbet ‘Addaseh (Adasa) from the southeast. 





Fig. 30. Wirbet el-Adaseh from the north. 


~~ 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) im 





Fig. 31. Tell en-Nasbeh (Beeroth) from the west. 





Fig. 38. Sacred oak and shrine of Sheikh Ahmed at Hirbet Haiyan. 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 





Fig. 33. Deir el-Azhar (Kirjath-jearim) from the southeast. 





Fig. 34. Wadi Samieh from above ‘Ain SAmieh. 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) V3 





Fig. 35. Gateway of Arab fortress at Burj el-Isaneh, built with Roman 
stones. 





Fig. 36. Et-Tell (Ai) from the west. 


74 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 





Fig. 37. Roman reservoir west of Hirbet Haiyan (second Ai). 





Fig. 32. Hirbet Kefirah (Chephirah) from the east. 


. 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 75 







Seilin © 
§. el-Gurabeh o 

° Sinjil 

el-Mugeir o 
‘Attarah ° ° Burj el-Isaneh 
° oh 
Tell ‘Asar 3% o Kefr Maljk 
Bir ez-Zeito ° ‘Ain Stoieh 
o Jifneh 
o et-Taiyiben 
H. el- ‘Auj& el-Fdqa° 
o Beitin o Beaata 


oet-Tell | 
o Deir Diwan 


Ramallah © {°Bireh oe 








a he DUP Gang ° Kefr Nata ain hg = 
AT Nala ‘pel en-Haébeh 
Beit-‘ir el-F6 qa Be ©Kefr ce oMupmas 


H. ‘Att@rah ° 
° Qalandieh 


















Jedfreh o oN 
er-Ram° 
el-Jib ° Btr Neb@lah 
Bidda ° o Q- Hazzir ht . 
Nebi Sh See cee st sno plat 
Deir el-Azhar pei* © oLac rat ‘Anata 
° = AAY e ? ad 
© Abu S638 . o el-‘Isawiyeh 
Qastal o fiénien? ttt (Nob). ° Ras Temtm 
Te r; 
6?” Jerusalem 
; @ 


5 Jebus ° el=‘Azirfyeh 


0 1 2 3 + S 
Scale of Miles 





‘ 


Mo Beth-lehem | ie 


Plate XX. Map of South Central Palestine (Modern). 


76 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


Shiloh ° 


EPHRAIM 


° Jeshanah 


*pAtarotho 
° Ephrain 


Baal-hazor ° 


e Gophna 
° 
Ophrah ? Baal-shalisha ~ 
> Bethel > Rinmon 
On AS ane 

Ramathaim o Cee ms Neara 

Beth-aven. oe (Noaran) 
° ‘Beeroth 


o Beth-horon the Upper... 
o *? Tomb of sotto ats 


““Ktaroth-Addar 
re) ?Gittaim 3 
Gederah o panan, ay Sei B E NIAM ] Ni 
Gibeon o oy 
oe: Azmaveth 
we e Parah 
Mizpah o . Hazor vy 
oGibéah ° Alemeth (Almon) 
Gallim e o Anathoth 
.. ©, Kirjath-jearin : ° 
Recta babes NIP Dh Ld eR 
8 ls Mebars: > ° Bahurin 
Waneatie Oeransien| a _° Amaniah.." “7 
(Beth-haccerem) } 


JUDAH 


o Beth-lehem 


Plate XXI. Map of South Central Palestine (Ancient) 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


z 













mapa a= 
oA CLELELL 
waamaan Fomamay 
Fo aE ZZ} 
peas LLL LLL AN te eee a << 
b2 eH rr ar ae ae a ee ZL = ate 
ee DN OI PELL LE 
po pL PPPS 
a ae eee [4 
Sars SS oe LPF 
Poss A LT I FFT AT ey FL A A LASS fA SSL 
ZZ ee ee CELA SSA Vi aaa OTT TILE LL LLL 
6 EEN LZZIZ LILA LL LTA ALD ee 
aaa BZ i 
Sar 
es 
Bee 
ee 
rea a GC 
tts 1 A 
a - 
aa a a ae a e a7. 
Sawa, E 
(FD LEE]. n 
Za ga 
OTP OTT ET I Pog PALA a LLL 
OD eee See ZFS GGG GAA SS LITLE 
eee tee, 
Se eee OR LE A ahh 
es — FF FPF PFT PSSA Ag APPA 
————— SF =e fos 
eee ee mat PL 
I I POF ene reel iors 
Zz Zz 5 ASF en Png nba tb anpid tbe ete ge pd DepEd phy ted bed ppdisghdsds 
— | 
PPP PIF LLLP IPI PDIP PDP DG DP AL Pf PPP DD PAIL PLDI LIP LTD, 
LL gD Pg IG AAP Pp LP EL BEALL ALL IPL PLLPEULILTE 


— First Period Second, Restoration ee eet 


Second Period Doubt ful Metre Scale 


Plate XXII. Plan of Fortresses I and IT. 


T7 


78 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 






\ 
IW 
\ 





\ < 
q 





IW 
NS 








YS gg a 


QQQY 
SV 









A 








SK |S Ei °AOOQOAO 
L 
A 
WY : 
ie 









Y 
V 


MLL 


Third Fortress Third, Restoration G Sys Pa Se Se ee 
_S—SS—=—=EO rt ——— 
—-— Recenstruction of ----- Inside Wall of Fourth M ad ] 
etre Dcale 
Walls of Third ve Reconstruction of IV 


Plate XXIII. Plan of Fortresses III and IV. 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 





Vertical section along m—n 
ny oY 3 4 


es 
Metre Seale iinner walli 


Cross section through northern defenses Cross section through southern defenses 


Plate XXIVa. 





“9 


CO 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


radius 13 em, 





OrG23 CI 12 Se 
pt rt ———— 


Ce ntimeter Scale 





Plate XXIVb. 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 81 





Plate XXV. 


82 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 





Plate XXVI. 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 83 





22 











Plate X XVII. 


84 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


Centimeter Scale 





Plate XXVIII. 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 85 








PLearus\io crawl ee” 






4 


radius 4.25 em, Tadius 2.75 en. 





radius S5¢m, 


-—— eG 18 


radius ¥ 75cm. 









ei gs PIGUMS LE IWS Caer 


-4 





Qo radius Yor ™N 







_radrus 6 cm. _ 





Centimeter Scale 








Plate X XIX. 


\ 





; Plate XXX. : 








7 
Z ' EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOUL) 87 
e 
: rah = [greenish 
2 meen kis 
, 
¥ 
f 
Plate XXXI. 





88 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


3 4 Ss 


Centimeter Scale 





Plate XXXII. 


EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FCL) 89 














Plate XXXITII. 


APPENDIX I—MIZPAH AND BEEROTH. 


Until recently the location of Mizpah has been considered one of the most 
probable topographical identifications in Palestine. The combination of 
Mizpah with Nebi Samwil, two hours northwest of Jerusalem, is due, like 
so many others, to the sagacity of the great pioneer, Epwarp Ropinson 
(Biblical Researches* II, pp. 356 ff.). It seemed so reasonable to scholars 
that it became quite generally accepted, though voices were not lacking to 

“defend the traditional identification with Ramathaim, the home of Samuel. 
So, for example, Guérin devoted twenty-two pages in the first volume of his 
Judée (pp. 862-384) to the defense of this view. Though skilfully pre- 
sented, GUBRIN’s argument will not stand for a moment in the light of our 
present knowledge (see App. II, Ramah of Samuel). 

A striking modification in the current theory was introduced by 
SCHLATTER, in his important work, Zur Topographie und Geschichte Palis- 
‘tinas, 1893 pp. 62-85. While accepting the identification of Nebi Samwil 
with Mizpah, he also insisted on combining it with the great high-place at 
Gibeon, where Solomon offered a vast holocaust in the early part of his reign 
(I Kings 3,). Not contented with this ScHLuATTER went on to identify 
Mizpah with Nob, because of their curious failure to be mentioned together 
in any passage or list of towns. Ingenious as his argument here is, it will 
not stand for a moment against the overwhelming evidence from other 
sources for the location of Nob on Ras el-MeSarif, or Scopus. Yet it proved 
too tempting for Lepstus, who in his Reich Christi (1903), pp. 108 ff., went 
so far as to locate a hypothetical pre-Solomonic sanctuary of Gibeon on 
Nebi Samwil. 

When Grorce ADAM SMITH and Bunt wrote their manuals of Palestinian 
geography, both accepted the identification of Mizpah with Nebi Samwil, 
so that it came to be considered as classic, and few thought of controverting 
it. Yet doubts began to be expressed: HagmmMryrer, in 1909 (ZDPV 
XXXII, 28-30), opposed this view, maintaining that Mizpah must have 
been nearer the Nablus road, but offering no identification himself, wisely 
avoiding the combination with Scopus (Har has-sdfim) which some have 
imprudently suggested. Hauvssr, on the other hand, carried it still farther 
from the road by suggesting as its site Hirbet Batn es-Sa‘ideh, a lofty point 
southwest of Biddii (PEF 1910, 127-8). 

Meanwhile the problem had been given a wholly new turn by the 
researches of Raboisson, who reached the conclusion that Mizpah should be 
identified with Tell en-Nasbeh, a mound about a mile and a half south of 


APPENDIX I.—MIZPAH AND BEEROTH 91 


el-Bireh.t.| Rasorsson published his results in a special work, Les Maspeh, 
Paris, 1897. The same suggestion was made independently by ConpER (PEF 
1898, 169), while Vincent (RB 1899, 316) accepted Raboisson’s theory. 
CLERMONT-GANNEAU, however, in a note (PEF 1898, 251) pointing out that 
CoNDER’s article had been anticipated, observed that the identification is 
‘‘very hypothetical.’? The matter was now dropped for over a decade, 
until RaBoIsson’s view was taken up by DauMAN, independently, it would 
seem, and defended at length by two of his pupils, BAUMANN and ALT. 
BAUMANN’S paper seems to have been written first, but AuT preceded him in 
print with a masterly paper (PJB VI, 1910, 46-62). Baumann’s discus- 
sion (ZDPV XXXIV, 119-187) is, in general, inferior, and shows less 
caution than Aur’s. For example, BAUMANN (p. 136 f.) thinks that Nasbeh 
is a corruption of Mispah, with popular etymology, so that Tell en-Nasbeh 
means T'rtimmerhiigel des Malzeichens. The latter meaning, however, 
despite PALMER’s authority, is entirely wrong; mnasbeh does not mean 
‘“stele’’ but ‘‘lot, portion’’ (classical nastb) in Palestinian Arabic. The 
name is found elsewhere in Palestine and presumably refers to the division 
of the ground among the joint owners by lot, following a custom widespread 
among the fellahin. As a matter of fact Tell en-Nasbeh is held in joint 
ownership. BAUMANN’s theory of a popular etymology is rendered 
impossible by the obvious fact that, while *Maspah might conceivably become 
Nasfeh or Nusfeh by dissimilation—though this particular change has no 
Palestinian parallel—it could not become Nasbeh by any known law. ALT 
wisely avoids combining the names. 

Impressive as is the group of names gathered on behalf of the identifica- 
tion of Mizpah with Tell en-Nasbeh—Datman (PJB VII, 14-15, ete.), Avr, 
Baumann, Loumann (ZDPV XULI, 1918, 151-7); Vincent (cf. now RB 
1922, 862, n. 4); and finally PHyTHIAN-ADAMS, in a paper read at the 
Palestine Oriental Society, Dee. 7, 1922—the writer is convinced that the 
identification with Nebi Samwil is correct, after all.2 One cannot minimize 


1 El-Bireh itself was identified with Mizpah by the Abbé HEIDE?, in an uncritical paper 
published in RB III (1894) 321-56. His treatment is as superficial and inexact as it is 
antiquated in its method. The following illustration is rather characteristic. On p. 333 
in a list of identifications for Mizpah supported by different scholars he says: ‘‘Others 
préfére (sic) Tell el-Foul.’’ In a note he refers to ArmMstRoNG, Names and Places, 
p. 127. In this repository, p. 131 (!) we read, ‘‘Others propose Tell el Ful’’ (!!). 
‘“Others’’ included in this case TOBLER, who might have been mentioned if Hriper had 
gone to the trouble of looking up his sources. 

2 SvEN LINDER discusses the question of the site of Gibeah in SG 51-60. His treat- 
ment is very fair, and though he finally sides with the school of DALMAN he does not 
* conceal the unsatisfactory character of the arguments. He concludes (p. 60): ‘‘Om 
allts& det benjaminitiska Mispa ar att sdka formodligen pa Tell en-Nasbe eller, vilket 
ar osannolikare, vid el-Bire eller en-Nebi Samuil sa har dock detta Mispa i varje fall 


92 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FCL) 


the strength of the arguments brought against it, but they are by no means 
invulnerable, as will, I trust, appear from the following discussion. 

The first argument marshalled by Aut (pp. 47-50) and BAUMANN (pp. 
134-5) comes from I Kings 15,,, where Asa is reported to have dismantled 
the hostile works of Baasha at Ramah, employing the materials for the 
construction of two new fortresses, Mizpah and Geba of Benjamin. ALT 
justly points out that if one fort were at Geba, commanding the pass over 
the Wadi es-Sweinit, the other would be located most naturally on the main 
road northward along the watershed, corresponding to the present Nablus 
road. Furthermore, he thinks, Baasha had violated Jewish soil in fortify- 
ing Ramah, so Asa must have retaliated by seizing Israelite territory north 
of Ramah. Accordingly, Aut places Mizpah at Tell en-Nasbeh, two and a 
half miles northwest of Ramah, overlooking the Nablus road from the west. 
In our discussion of the site of Gibeah it has been shown that this theory 
introduces more difficulties than it avoids; if, however, we simply emend 
‘‘Geba of Benjamin’’ to ‘‘Gibeah of Benjamin’’ our troubles vanish auto- 
matically. Neither Baasha nor Asa actually invaded enemy territory, and 
Asa’s building operations were designed to protect all three roads from the 
north, instead of leaving the important route from Betunia to Gibeon 
unguarded, as would be the case under the alternative theory. Whereas, 
moreover, Jeba‘ and Tell en-Nasbeh are not on the same east-west line, 
Tell el-FGl and Nebi Samwil are. Nor is our least argument derived from 
the fact that we have discovered at Tell el-Fil a fortress which dates from 
about the time of Asa, showing evident signs of hasty construction, including 
the use of large square stones, carefully smoothed on one side, but with the 
smooth side turned inward or to one side. Such stones obviously came from 
another fortress, since they are entirely distinct from the stones employed in 
the earlier fortresses at Tell el-FGl (see above). In view of the fact that 
the supporters of Tell en-Nasbeh consider the evidence from I Kings 15,, 
as their strongest card, the weakness of their hypothesis becomes clear.. As 
we shall presently see, our ‘side rests its case on much more convincing 
arguments derived from other passages. 

Aut (who as the ablest representative of the Tell en-Nasbeh school may 
be chosen as its champion) next turns to the pericope Jer. 40-41. This 
section is most important for our contention, so we may discuss it rather 
fully. After the fall of Jerusalem, Nebuzaradan, commander of the Chal- 
daean forces in Judah, set out to return to Babylonia with the booty and 


legat nara det vid stora nordsydvagen mellan vagskalen vid Rds es-Salah och Bab 
el-Mu‘allaka belagna Gibea.’’ In other words, LINDER admits the possibility of the 
identification of Mizpah with Nebi Samwil. From so careful and conscientious an — 
investigator, such an extent of opposition to the reigning doctrines of his School is very 
significant, since LINDER othefwise follows DALMAN very closely. 


APPENDIX I.—MIZPAH AND BEEROTH 93 


the Jewish exiles, among whom was the prophet Jeremiah. Since the philo- 
Chaldaean, or at least anti-Egyptian attitude of the latter was well known, 
the commander decided to release him, and sent him back to the Jewish 
governor, Gedaliah, now residing in Mizpah. Jer. 40,, ; says explicitly that 
Jeremiah was sent back from Ramah to Gedaliah at Mizpah (v. 6). The 
verb ‘‘to return’’ (JY) can certainly not be used of going on along the 
road from Ramah to Mizpah, but is perfectly natural in speaking of a 
return to Nebi Samwil, to rejoin his own people. 

Among the Jewish nobles who had escaped capture by flight and now 
returned to Gedaliah was one Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, apparently 
related to the king of the Ammonites, Baalis. Despite the warnings of 
others, Gedaliah received Ishmael kindly, and was rewarded for his gener- 
osity by base ingratitude. Ishmael not only slew Gedaliah and all the men 
with him, both Jews and Chaldaeans, but also committed another atrocity, 
which was remembered with execration. On the second day after the 
assassination of Gedaliah, a body of eighty men from Shechem, Shiloh and 
Samaria, attired as mourners, bringing rich gifts for the ruined temple- 
service in Jerusalem, came to Mizpah on their way to the holy city. Fearing 
evidently that they might suspect something and so deprive him of a 
desirable booty by escape, Ishmael went out to meet them, and escorted them 
with treacherous words into the town. When they were once safely inside 
the trap, his retainers set upon them, butchering them all, with the excep- 
tion of some who claimed wealth, and so were saved in hopes of future 
ransom money. AuT and BAUMANN hold from the tenor of the passage that 
Mizpah must have been on the high-road from Shiloh to Jerusalem, and 
that Ishmael decoyed the pilgrims into the town. However, by this time 
everyone knew, without question, that Gedaliah was installed in his new 
capital, north of Jerusalem. For permission to visit the site of the temple 
and protection from bandits, in the unsettled state of the country, a visit to 
Gedaliah was imperatively necessary, and was, incidentally, a simple matter, 
requiring only a very slight detour, if we locate Mizpah at Nebi Samwil. 
The identity of our Mizpah with the Mizpah of Asa is proved beyond a 
doubt by the allusion Jer. 41, to the huge cistern built by Asa in fortifying 
the place against Baasha, into which Ishmael threw the corpses of his 
victims.? It may be observed that several huge cisterns are known to be in 
Nebi Samwil, while none are known in Tell en-Nasbeh, nor are they 
necessary there. 

After his exploits, Ishmael judged it the part of prudence to escape at 
once to his Ammonite friends, before the alarm was spread, and his retreat 
eut off by Johanan, who was still in command of a respectable force. 


’ For PHytHIAN-ADAMS’ suggestion that the word bdr refers here to a dry moat see 
the discussion at the end of this appendix. 


94 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) . 


Exactly where Johanan was at this time is not certain; according to Jer. 
40,, he and his men were roaming about the open country of Judaea (bas- 
Sadeh) after the fall of Jerusalem into the hands of the Chaldaeans, while 
Jer. 41,, says that they settled near Bethlehem for a time after the assassi- 
nation of Gedaliah. At all events Johanan was certainly somewhere in 
Judaea, to the south of Mizpah, when Gedaliah was slain. Since Johanan 
had had his suspicions regarding Ishmael’s purpose, it is probable that he 
remained in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, even after Gedaliah’s rebuff 
(Jer. 40,,), in order to keep watch over the treacherous protégé of the 
Ammonites. : 
Under the circumstances it would have been the height of folly for 
Ishmael to have turned southward toward Johanan’s base of operations in 
his retreat from Mizpah to Ammon. As it was, Ishmael was overtaken by 
Johanan, who had fortunately learned of the outrage, at the big pool 
(D939 O') at Gibeon (Jer. 41,,), and the prisoners were rescted, while 
the traitor sought safety in flight, escaping with eight men to the Ammonites. 
Johanan returned to Mizpah with the refugees, and leaving Mizpah settled 
in the vicinity of Bethlehem for an indefinite period, after which he fled 
to Egypt, being apprehensive that he would be called to account for the 
condition of affairs in the country, if not for Ishmael’s rebellion. 

It is clear that Mizpah must be situated southwest of the large pool at 
Gibeon. Fortunately, we are informed in regard to this pool from another 
source, II Sam. 2,,, which states that Abner and Joab met for battle at the 
pool of Gibeon (YI) ND3),* to be sought southeast of ej-Jib, below the 
fountain (cf. DanMan, PJB 1912, 12). Now, if Mizpah is Nebi Samwil, 
and Ishmael was trying to flee toward Ammon from a foe whose base was 
in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, his only natural route would be by the 
valley east of Gibeon, the nearest practicable way to Ramah, from which 
an easy road led to Jeba‘ and the Wadi es-Sweinit, down which escape to 
the Jordan Valley and the fords was simple. AuT and Baumann’ have 
great difficulty in explaining the detour to the southwest which they must 
assume for Ishmael, if Mizpah is to be placed at Tell en-Nasbeh.°® 

Little can be deduced from the lists. Jos. 18,,., mentions Mizpeh 
between Beeroth and Chephirah, a statement which is quite correct if 
Beeroth is Tell en-Nasbeh, as will be shown below to be probable. Neh. 3, 
mentions the men of Mizpah and Gibeon together, a collocation much harder 


* There is no difficulty in combining the F543 with the O54 9, since the use of 
1%, ‘‘waters,’’ in the sense of ‘‘fountain, reservoir’’ is very common in Hebrew; ef. 
GESENIUS-BUHL, s. v. D3. 

* LINDER observes, apropos of AuT’s discussion of this passage: ‘‘Det forefaller 
som om Alt PJB 1910: 51 icke lyckats frin sin synpunkt lésa den sv&righet som ligger 
i ortshinvisningen Jer. 41: 12.’’—SG 55. 


APPENDIX I.—MIZPAH AND BEEROTH 95 


to understand if Mizpah is Tell en-Nasbeh than if it is Nebi Samwil, one- 
third the distance away from Gibeon. 

The name Mizpah (M58), meaning ‘‘Look-out,’’ or ‘‘ Watch-tower,”’ 
indicates that the place bearing it was lofty, with a good view in at least 
three directions. The fact that Mizpah appears repeatedly as the point to 
which Israel and Judah gathered whenever a general muster of fighting 
men was desired, shows that it was an exceptionally well-situated spot, from 
which beacon fires would be visible to the whole countryside. During the 
Philistine wars it is mentioned with special frequency as the center from 
which Israelite operations were directed. It must, therefore, have been 
situated at a point visible to the greater part of central Palestine, which 
was then in most danger, since the Jewish Shephelah was already tributary 
to the Philistines and northern Palestine was protected by its remoteness. 
Tell en-Nasbeh has a very limited view, being lower (2570 ft.) than the 
surrounding hills on three sides. On the east one can only see about half 
a mile, to the top of the ridge on the opposite side of the Nablus road 
(height 2740 ft.) ; on the west one sees no farther than Bettnia (2670), 
three miles; on the north the view is limited by the ridge on which Bireh 
and Ramallah are situated (height 2800-2900), a mile and a half away. 
On the south there is a slightly better view, hemmed in by er-Ram, Tell 
el-F'al, the Ras el-Mesarif, and Nebi Samwil. Some of the highest buildings 
in Jerusalem and on the Mount of Olives are also visible on the southern 
horizon. It is hard indeed to see how a place with so restricted a view 
could ever be dignified by the name ‘‘Mizpah,’’ and harder still to under- 
stand its qualifications to become the rallying-place of Israel. 

Let us turn then to Nebi Samwil. From the roof of the mosque (3000 
ft.) one sees a vast panorama spread out at one’s feet. To the east there 
is the land beyond Jordan, with the mountains of Gilead and Moab; on 
the west the Mediterranean appears. Southward the glance wanders among 
the hills of Judah until it is lost in the distance; northward an almost 
unbroken view extends as far as Tell ‘Asti, while farther west one can see 
considerably more. If any place was ever adapted to play a unifying role 
in central Palestine, it was surely Nebi Samwil! If it did not enjoy the 
appellative ‘‘ Mizpah,’’ it ought to have received it. 

From the narrative in Jud. 20-21 it is impossible to reach any conclusions 
as to the location of Mizpah (contrast ALT, pp. 51-52; BAuMANN, pp. 129- 
131). Mizpah appears simply as a stereotyped motive; Judah and Israel, 
‘‘from Dan to Beersheba,”’ had to gather at Mizpah, so it was introduced 
into the narrative. The sudden shift of the Israelite base from Mizpah to 
Bethel (Jud. 20,,) shows clearly that Mizpah is a secondary insertion. 
Originally the struggle was doubtless local, involving only Mount Ephraim 
and eastern Benjamin. 


96 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FCL) 


Despite the frequent mention of Mizpah in connection with the Philistine 
wars, there is only one passage from which a topographical hint may be 
derived, and that not altogether certain. I Sam. 7,, tells us that the Philis- 
tines attacked Israel at Mizpah and were defeated, being pursued by their 
victorious foes as far as Beth-car (13 D9 ANN Ay. ‘‘as far as below 
Bet-kar’’). There can be little doubt that the name, otherwise unknown, 
is corrupt, since the element kar is unparalleled and highly improbable. 
The suggestion that we should read ‘‘Beth-horon’’ (0A 3) is unlikely, 
demanding too violent a change; probably we must read. ‘‘Beth-cerem’’ 
(O75 75S = 075M A'S) = Beth-haccerem. The latter is mentioned twiee 
_ (Jer. 6, and Neh. 3,,) as a town in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, so 
we must identify it with the modern ‘Ain Karim, four miles southwest of 
Jerusalem, the reputed birthplace of John the Baptist. It is true that 
Jerome, in his commentary to Jeremiah, states that there was still a village 
between Tekoa and Jerusalem called Bethacharma, clearly Beth-haccerem, 
and that ‘Ain Karim is nowhere near the road from Jerusalem to Tekoa, so 
that modern scholars have generally separated them. The passage in Jere- 
miah, however, in mentioning successively Benjamin, Tekoa, and Beth- 
haecerem, obviously means to name places on all sides of Jerusalem, so 
Beth-haccerem cannot well be on a line between Jerusalem and Tekoa. On 
the other hand, Jerome, thinking of the fact that both Tekoa and Betha- 
eharma lay south of Jerusalem, was clearly speaking loosely, without a 
distinet idea of the bearing of Jeremiah’s words. The name of the town 
appears also without bét in the famous passage lost in the Masoretic text 
between Jos. 15,, and 15,,, and fortunately preserved in the LXX. Here 
Karem (Kapeu) is mentioned between Sobe (?—text Swpys or SoBys) modern 
Soba, and Bether (Baiéyp), modern Bittir (Beth-ther), a collocation which 
ean only mean ‘Ain Karim. For the relation between Karem and Beth- 
kerem or Beth hak-Kerem see Appendix VIII (Bethany in the Old Testa- 
ment), where many parallels are collected; for Beth-haccerem = ‘Ain 
Karim ef. Beth-shemesh = ‘ Ain Sems, ete.® 

The phrase ‘‘below Beth-(hac)cerem’’ can only mean in the Wadi Sarar, 
which winds toward the southwest just below ‘Ain Karim. If the Philistine 
retreat was directed down the Wadi Sarar, in the direction of Beth-shemesh, 
then in Philistine hands, it must have come from the immediate neighbor- 
hood of Nebi Samwil,—not a bad argument for the identity of the latter 
with Mizpah. If Mizpah were located at Tell en-Nasbeh, the natural line 
of retreat would have led over the road to Beth-horon or down the Wadi 
Selman. 


*The identification of Beth-car with Beth-haccerem and ‘Ain Karim was proposed 
long ago but disregarded—see the Survey of Western Palestine, Vol. III, p. 20. 


APPENDIX I.—MIZPAH AND BEEROTH 97 


The statement in the next verse (I Sam. 7,,) that on Israel’s return from 
the pursuit Samuel erected a stone memorial, which he named ‘‘ Eben-ezer,’’ 
between Mizpah and Shen, does not help much. The LXX reads 7 raya 
in place of [&%, which presupposes a variant (110, Yesanah. Since 
Jeshanah was an important point in Mount Ephraim, now Burj el-Isaéneh 
(see Appendix III, Ophrah and Ephraim) northwest of Tell ‘Astr, one 
would be tempted seriously to make the combination, if it were possible to 
find a Mizpah in Ephraim. Unfortunately, it is not, and the variant indi- 
eated by the Greek reading is probably an erroneous emendation. Possibly 
the name has-Sen, ‘‘the tooth,’’ was applied to the conical hill-top of Qastal, 
southwest of Nebi Samwil.’ The stone Ebenezer (stone of help) merely 
designated the site of an Israelite victory, and has no connection with the 
Eben-ezer near Aphek (Mejdel Yaba) mentioned I Sam. 4,, 5,, which was 
already in existence before Samuel erected his memorial. 

This brings us to the much-discussed passage I Maccabees 3,, (ALT, pp. 
53-4; BAUMANN, pp. 122-9, 133-4): kat cvvyyOnoav Kai nAPocav eis Maconda 
Katevavtt “lepovoaAnp, Te Toros Tpocevxns cis Macondha To zpdrepov TH ‘Iopand, And 
(the Jews) gathered and came to Massepha, opposite Jerusalem, for 
Massepha was formerly Israel’s place of worship. The phrase xarévavti 
"Tepovoadynp has been one of the principal mainstays of the protagonists of 
the orthodox theory, since the verse goes on to identify Massepha explicitly 
with the place of the name in the Old Testament, the location of which we 
are now considering.® In the second century B. C. the location of Mizpah 
was certainly well known, and there may have been a village there, as in 
the days of Nehemiah, three centuries before. Since Nebi Samwil is one of 
the most prominent points in the whole northern horizon of the city of 
Jerusalem, the preposition may well be used of its relation to the capital. 
It is true that Tell en-Nasbeh is visible from the top of some high buildings, 
but it is so effectively screened and overshadowed by the higher hills in its 
vicinity that one would hardly think of defining its situation as is done in 
the Book of Maccabees. Baumann has collected a large number of 
passages, and presented statistics which show irrefutably that plain visi- 
bility was one of the prerequisites for the use of xarévav7: and its congeners. 
For this reason he attempts to explain it as referring to the direction of 


* ConDER, PEF 1898, 169 proposed the identification of Shen with Kefr Siyan, a ruined 
village west of Ramallah, in connection with his identification of Tell en-Nasbeh with 
Mizpah. The name Kefr Siyén goes back only into the Aramaic period, and Siydn is 
phonetically very different from Sen. 

® The Greek form Macondga is found both in the O. T. and in Maccabees. Its rather 
anomalous form is probably due to the operation of some analogy, possibly that of the 
- common word massebah, ‘‘sacred pillar.’?? The original pronunciation of Mispah in 
Classical Hebrew was Maspah; according to PHILIPPI’s Law short unaccented a in a 
closed syllable regularly becomes 1%. 


98 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FCL) 


prayer; the Jews, according to him, went to Massepha, (praying) toward 
Jerusalem. His point is syntactically forced in the extreme, but logically 
it is sound; the word xarévavre is used because the Jews selected a place 
facing Jerusalem from which to pray for the recovery of their holy city— 
another strong argument for Mizpah = Nebi Samwil. 

The military argument is decidedly a boomerang for our opponents, since 
it is much better suited to defend our position than the Tell en-Nasbeh 
theory. Since the Syrian army made Emmaus-‘Amwas its base, it was 
important that the Jews, who wished to prevent relief from coming to 
Jerusalem, which they were blockading, should occupy a position com- 
manding a view of the western approaches, up which the Syrians must 
advance from ‘Amwas. For this purpose no place was so well suited as 
Nebi Samwil, and none so poorly as Tell en-Nasbeh. Moreover, one would 
at least expect the Jews to select a point well within their own borders as 
a base, not a point like Tell en-Nasbeh, on the northern boundary of Judaea. 

In the Onomasticon, Eusebius tells us that Mizpah (Massepha) was a 
place near Kirjath-jearim, where the ark stayed once, and where Samuel 
taught, being mentioned also in Jeremiah (ed. KuosTeRMANN, p. 128). 
This statement is usually dismissed as the result of an erroneous combina- 
tion on the learned father’s part, so especially by Aut and BaAuMANN. Yet 
there is no a priori ground for such a judgment, and from our point of view 
Eusebius may be quite correct. Nebi Samwil is equi-distant from Jeru- 
salem and from Kirjath-jearim, and the distance of five Roman miles in a 
straight line is not too great to allow the correctness of the adjective rAyciov. 
If it were on a Roman road, Eusebius would doubtless have furnished us 
with an exact statement of the proximity, but this was hardly feasible under 
the circumstances, so he contented himself with a loose statement, perhaps 
based upon recollections of a visit paid from Kirjath-jearim to Nebi Samwil. 
If we are correct, the connection of Samuel with Mizpah was one of the 
outstanding points of interest there in the fourth century. From pointing 
out the place where Samuel judged to the spot where he was buried was 
only a step, so we cannot be surprised to find Ramathaim moved to Nebi 
Samwil, bag and baggage, as appears already in the sixth century. During 
the latter century the mosaic map of Madeba gives Appafeu 7 (kal) Apipabe 
(a) as the name of a place beside Ramah (Papa), and the pilgrim Theo- 
dosius (ch. 6) says that Ramatha, wbi requiescit Samuhel, was five miles 
from Jerusalem, a distance which can only refer to Nebi Samwil. Yet in 
the fourth century, Eusebius identified Ramathaim and Arimathea (Appafep, 
Apyafia) with the town of Remphthis (Eus. Peudis, Jer. Remfthis), near 
Diospolis (Ludd), certainly modern Rentis (Onom. pp. 32, 144 below). 
The combination with Beit Rimeh, which some modern scholars have sug- 
gested to explain Jerome’s addition in regione Thamnitica, is wholly base- 


APPENDIX I.—MIZPAH AND BEEROTH 99 


less, since this applies quite as well to Rentis. The name Beth Rimah 
appears already in the Talmud (Men. IX, 6; cf. Dauman, PJB X, 31), and 
is doubtless much older. Neither Rentis nor Beit Rimeh has any more 
right than Nebi Samwil to be identified with Ramathaim, the site of which 
is probably Ramallah, as I try to show in Appendix II. 

But if Eusebius and Jerome regarded Rentis as the representative of 
Ramathaim, and we find that Nebi Samwil arrogated the honor later, there 
should be some evidence for the time when the shift occurred. Nor have 
we far to seek. Thanks to the researches of Lonmann (ZDPV XLI, 117- 
157) and Vincent (RB XXXI [1922], 376-402) it is certain that Justinian 
built part of the monastery and church of Samuel on Nebi Samwil; both 
agree fully, and show convincingly that some of the remains still extant go 
back to the time of Justinian, in agreement with the statement of Procopius 
that Justinian built a well or cistern (¢péap) and a wall for the monastery 
of Samuel (Procopius, De aedtficiis Justiniam, V, 9). It is well to devote 
a paragraph or two to this subject, in view of its importance for the question 
under discussion. 

The present mosque of the Prophet Samuel is situated on a platform of 
rock which was formerly in the centre of an esplanade 90 metres long by 
55 wide. This esplanade was surrounded by a massive retaining wall, the 
remains of which have been minutely described by Vincent, RB XXXI, 
387-392. As pointed out by LOHMANN, with whom VINCENT agrees, the 
masonry of the enclosing wall is specifically that of Justinian’s time (ZDPV 
XLI, 145).° The prominent bosses of the stones and the solid, but irregular 
bond preclude an assignment to the time of Constantine, when smooth 
facing was preferred (and also, it may be added, to the period of Eudocia). 
On the other hand, they are characteristic of the architecture of Justinian. 

The mosque is an Arabic restoration of the Crusaders’ church, which 
itself utilized materials from the older Byzantine basilica, as shown by 
Savienac and ABEL, in their description RB XXI, 267-79. The Byzantine 
remains are fragmentary, but such as they are seem to indicate a Late 
Byzantine origin. 

. The identification of Nebi Samwil with Ramathaim remained standard 
during the Crusading age, and there have not been wanting scholars like 
GusrRIN to defend it in modern times, despite the overwhelming arguments 


® VINCENT, ibid., p. 394, has been, through inadvertence, unfair to LOHMANN, to whom 
he ascribes a vague pre-Arabie dating of the wall. LOHMANN, however, was only 
beginning his argument on p. 144; on the next page he goes on to narrow the limits, 
finally assigning the date to Justinian’s time, for the reasons we quote, which VINCENT 
does not impugn. The latter’s treatment of the subject is naturally much surer and 
more elegant, as befits the foremost living authority on Palestinian archaeology, but he 
sometimes allows an evident hostility to color his remarks. 


100 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


against this view (see above and Appendix II). But if Nebi Samwil is 
not Ramathaim, and if Eusebius’s combination with Mizpah should prove 
to be wrong, how did the association of the site with Samuel arise? 
ScHLATTER suggested (loc. cit.) that the cult of Samuel here was preceded 
by that of the prophet Nathan, but, as LonMANN has pointed out (op. cit. 
p. 157), ScuuaTTErR’s idea is baseless. ABEL and Vincent think that the 
source of this identification may have lain in ‘‘l’invention en ce lieu d’un 
corps que l’on crut étre celui du fameux prophéte.’’ As they observe, the 
localization of several important holy sites in the fourth century led to the 
‘“discovery’’ of a veritable host of lesser sites in their vicinity during the 
following century. But this theory does not reckon with the principle of 
omne vivum ex ovo, which applies also in the evolution of tradition and, 
though possible, is distinctly a pis aller. By far the most probable suppo- 
sition is that the name Samuel was attached to the site from some other, 
more tangible association, as in the case of the different localizations of 
Jonah’s home, as shown in detail by Pére Ape (JPOS II, 175-83). The 
necessary association is provided by Eusebius’s identification of Nebi 
Samwil with Mizpah, discussed above. . 

A remarkable statement of Epiphanius (Adv. haer. 46, 5),*° placing 
Gibeon eight miles from Jerusalem, and calling it the only summit near 
Jerusalem which could vie with the Mount of Olives in height, has been 
pressed into service to show that Nebi Samwil was known as 7 Tafaev in the 
fourth century. It is quite true that, if Nebi Samwil was at that time 
unoccupied, as quite likely, it may have been referred to carelessly as 
‘‘Gibeon,’’ since the latter town is not much over a mile away. On the 
other hand, however, the distance of eight’ miles given would be three miles 
in excess of the truth. While Epiphanius is notoriously credulous and 
often inexact, he was a native of Palestine and had abundant opportunities 
for knowing the truth. It may therefore be regarded as likely that 
Epiphanius referred, not to Nebi Samwil, but to the equally lofty summit 
(Ras et-Tahtineh) of the ridge on which Ramallah and Bireh are situated, 
which is nine Roman miles north of Jerusalem in a straight line. As has 
been seen by other scholars, we are in a position to demonstrate the correct- 
ness of this view. In the Onomasticon (ed. Kuost., p. 66) Gibeon is said 
to be four miles to the west of Bethel, near Rama (er-Ram)—rdroiov 
Baw6nr mpos dvopas ws ard onpewy 8. mapakertar de TH ‘Papa.1? One might think 

10 Kal yap otire év ter xetrac [Todyobd] mapa rods dddovus Térous: dyTixpus ydp éore Td TOD 
"Edar@vos dpos, bndérepoy kal dard onuelwy dx ) TaBadv indordrn. HoLn’s new critical 
edition offers no corrections or variants. 

“The additional statement of the Onomasticon (p. 66, 15), mdnoloy Peupaa (read 
Peuywy with Jerome and Procopius of Gaza) is syntactivally very awkward, since it is 


brought in parenthetically at a place where it does not belong. It really belongs, I 
would suggest, to the next entry, under Ta:Be (Geba), the displacement being caused by 


APPENDIX I.—MIZPAH AND BEEROTH 101 


that ‘‘Bethel’’ and ‘‘Rama’’ had been transposed accidentally, but this is 
impossible, since Jerome and Procopius of Gaza support the reading of the 
Onomasticon, and the result would be very strange indeed. It is true that 
ej-Jib is just three miles in a straight line west of er-Ram, but it is much 
nearer Jerusalem than it is Bethel, so a statement ‘‘near Bethel’’ would be 
incomprehensible. Moreover, we shall see below, in connection with the 
question of Beeroth, that Eusebius placed Gibeon on a high hill along the 
road to Neapolis (Nablus). It is, accordingly, clear that the Gibeon of 
Eusebius and Epiphanius was incorrectly identified with Ramallah, a little 
over three Roman miles in a straight line to the southwest of Bethel. The 
- additional remark ‘‘near Rama’’ is fully in place. The reason for this 
identification escapes me at present, but the fact seems incontrovertible. 
It may be observed that Jerome gives the correct view in this account of 
Paula’s pilgrimage. 

With the supposed testimony of Epiphanius to the theory that Nebi 
Samwil was the high-place of Gibeon there falls the only positive argument 
in support of it. The other arguments are all impressionistic. The prin- 
cipal one is that, if Nebi Samwil is not Mizpah, it would have no ancient 
identification if it were not the high-place of Gibeon. As usually presented, 
this argument moves in a vicious circle. Another reason, developed elo- 
quently by no less a scholar than Pére Vincent (RB XXXI, 364-76), is 
that the Gibeonites would be inevitably led to invest the summit of Nebi 
Samwil, rising majestically above their own town, with a special halo of 
sanctity. If this principle really operated in such a case, why did not the 
Jebusite inhabitants of Jerusalem build a famous high-place on the summit 
of the Mount of Olives, which at the smaller distance intervening between 
it and Zion is quite as impressive as Nebi Samwil is when viewed from 
ej-Jib? Dauman, who for some time shared SCHLATTER’s view (cf. PJB 
IV, 32), has now given it up (ZDPV XULI, 119, n. 1), preferring to place 
the bémah in question on the hill above the ancient tell of Gibeon, now 
occupied by the modern village, especially since the ruins of a Byzantine 
church seem to stamp the summit of the hill as sacred (PJB X, 22). The 
relation between the town and its bdémdéh on the hill above would be the 
same as that between Zion, the Jebusite town, and Moriah, where the Temple 
replaced an older sacred place, or between Ramathaim and the high-place 
on the hill-top where Samuel offered sacrifices. The ba@mdéh in Gibeon was 
doubtless called the ‘‘great high-place’’ (I Kings 3,) simply because it was 
the most highly esteemed shrine in the vicinity of Jerusalem at the time; 
it does not follow at all that it had to be on the highest hill-top available— 
antiquity and the authority conferred by a popular cult and a successful 


_ the preceding statement, ‘ ‘set apart for the Levites.’’ The Onomasticon refers else- 
where to Remmon (Rammian), which lies several miles north of Geba. 


102 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


oracular service would be quite sufficient. Who can assign natural reasons 
for the superior prestige enjoyed by the shrines of Lourdes or Loretto, 
Czenstochowa or Andacollo? 

In ease the schools of DanMAN and LAGRANGE are right in removing 
Mizpah from Nebi Samwil, we would then have a tabula rasa for the early 
history of the site. But the latter is one of the finest, with a commanding 
situation, easily fortified, yet easy of access, with springs at its foot, excellent 
rock for cisterns, and salubrious atmosphere. 

We are now ready to turn to the archaeological argument. The members 
of DALMAN’s school maintain that the site of Nebi Samwil is altogethér too 
small for the site of an important place like Mizpah, and that there are no 
“remains which can certainly be ascribed to the Israelite period. They 
hold that there should be some accumulation of débris in such a site, instead 
of bare outcroppings of rock at the very summit. Tell en-Nasbeh, on the 
other hand, is an extensive site, with the unmistakable tell formation, 
indicating city walls and accumulation of débris. Plausible as these con- 
tentions sound at first thought, they are specious, and do not afford firm 
ground. Nebi Samwil consists of an upper hill, with a stone platform about 
250 by 100 meters in extent, which sinks on the west about ten to twenty 
meters to the level of a ridge which extends for some distance toward the 
east, then sinking more rapidly into the valley. It is quite true that there 
was scant room on the peak for a village of any size, though enormous 
masses of débris are piled on the eastern slopes of the hill, showing on 
examination a high potsherd content, the sherds being mainly Crusading, 
early Arab, and Byzantine, especially comb-marked and corrugated Byzan- 
tine or early Arab and Crusading faience. On the lower western ridge a 
few meters beneath, however, there is an abundance of room for an ancient 
Israelite town, and the rock is in places quite hidden by masses of earth 
intermixed with potsherds, most of which proved on examination to be 
typically Jewish, and Israelite, Byzantine and Arab sherds being compara- 
tively rare. The remarkable rock cuttings studied recently by LoHMANN 
and VINCENT are not all modern; many of them, as well as some of the 
huge cisterns, may go back to a greater antiquity. Moreover, as has been 
pointed out by Kirrsn and others, the stone platform at the summit is admir- 
ably adapted to serve as an ancient high-place—not the high-place of 
Gibeon, but the still more famous bamdah of Mizpah. 

Let us then visit Tell en-Nasbeh, and gather pot-sherds on the tell, as the 
writer has repeatedly. Among the sherds found were Canaanite and early 
Israelite, including a piece with a polished brown slip, and others with con- 
centric lines of pebble burnishing on a red slip. Mr. PoytrHran-ADAMS 
also found there a fine Canaanite sherd with a brown slip. We found no 
Byzantine pieces, though late Jewish ware occurs, as well as some Arabic. 


APPENDIX I.—MIZPAH AND BEEROTH 103 


In other words, Tell en-Nasbeh was an important Canaanite site, occupied 
well down into Jewish times, abandoned apparently in Roman and Byzan- 
tine centuries, and reoccupied to some extent during the Moslem period. In 
the Roman period, the town was situated at the foot of the hill, below the 
springs, which were then guided into large reservoirs, and employed for 
irrigation purposes. At the Roman ruins southeast and south of the tell, 
and known as Hirbet ‘ Attarah,?* there are quantities of Roman and Byzan- 
tine corrugated and other sherds. Today the water is guided further to 
the north, by the brick factory of Khan Abii Skandar (dike! Py ws), 


which also serves as an automobile supply station on the Nablus road. 

The foregoing observations should make it clear that Tell en-Nasbeh 
occupies the site of an important Canaanite walled city, still existing in 
Israelite times, while Mizpah, so far as we know, attained importance only 
in Israelite times. We have no reason to believe that Mizpah was a walled 
town at any period; the fortress of King Asa doubtless crowned the highest 
hill, where the mosque now stands. The absence of a true tell at Nebi 
Samwil is, in fact, a strong argument for its identification with Mizpah. But 
what ancient town is then represented by Tell en-Nasbeh? If we can 
answer this question satisfactorily, we may safely regard our contention as 
established. 

The simplest solution is to place the pre-Roman town of Ataroth Archi 
(or Addar; see Appendix VI, The Northern Boundary of Benjamin) on 
the tell, since the latter lies only about 500 metres north of the Roman ruin 
of ‘Attaérah. Natural as this may seem at first sight, there are serious 
objections to it. Our Ataroth is never mentioned in all early literature 
except in the description of the northern boundary of Benjamin, and we 
have no reason to regard it as a Canaanite town. Were Ataroth as impor- 
tant as the ruins of Tell en-Nasbeh proclaim the ancient town there to have 
been, this silence would be inexplicable. I would therefore propose the 
identification of Tell en-Nasbeh with the long-sought Beeroth, a member of 
the ‘‘Hivite’’ tetrapolis, and mentioned, with its gentilic, some ten times in 
the Old Testament. 

The first to propose an identification for Beeroth in modern times was 
Rosinson, Biblical Researches' 11, 347, where, on the ground of the Onomas- 
ticon and the biblical allusions, he suggested el-Bireh, a mile east of 
Ramallah. Since the names seemed to be identical, other scholars adopted 
his view without ado, and Gufrin’s demonstration (Judée, III, 7-13) was 
felt by most to be conclusive. Almost the only adverse note in the chorus 


“The form ‘ Attdrah for Hebrew ‘ Atarét is like ‘ Adddseh for *Hadasah (Adasa), ete. 
The doubling is due to morphological assimilation to the common Modern Arabic nominal 
eategory gattdlah, which is much more common now than quatdlah. 


104 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


of approval was sounded by Buut, who in his Geographie (p. 173) thought 
that the combination of Beeroth with Bireh was very doubtful, and that 
Beeroth more probably lay on the present Jaffa road, southwest of Gibeon. 
In 1907 (Loca Sancta, p. 43) THoMsEN proposed to locate Beeroth at Hirbet 
‘fd, half a mile northwest of ej-Jib, a view which was at once rejected by 
DaLMAN and GuTHE, because of the insignificance of the remains, which 
cannot possibly represent an important Canaanite town. GuTHE next 
(MNDPV 1912, 1-9) in arather elaborate paper presented the site of Hirbet 
el-Latatin (i. e. el-Atatin, pl. of atti, ‘‘lime-kiln’’) a mile northwest of 
Hirbet ‘id, as a candidate for the identification. As DauMAN observed, 
there may have been a road-castle here, but certainly no Canaanite town; 
the sherds, however, are Arabic. DauMAn himself (PJB VIII, 18 f.), after 
criticizing the views of Roprnson, THOMSEN, and GUTHE, suggested that 
Eusebius was thinking of Hirbet el-Biyar, about a kilometre northeast: of 
ej-Jib, when he wrote the description of the site of Beeroth in the Onomas- 
ticon. Since no important town ever lay at these insignificant ruins, 
DaLMAN proposed the identification of Beeroth with Biddi, or Biddé, south- | 
west of Gibeon and west of Nebi Samwil. Against this there are two 
principal objections. The site is very unimpressive and without a natural 
water-supply, such as the name ‘‘Beeroth’’ presupposes; nor are there 
ancient remains. The name is ancient, going back, I would suggest, to a 
Bé-~ddé, corrupted from *Bét-“Iddé (by dissimilation; bé is a well known 
reduction of bét); the name ‘Zddé occurs several times in the O. T., and 
the corrupt form with X once (Ezra 8,,). Accordingly, we must distinguish 
it from a contemporary Beeroth. 

Having passed briefly in review the different identifications advanced so 
far, let us turn to the evidence—not so abundant as is the material for 
Mizpah, but still very respectable. Beeroth is first mentioned Jos. 9,, as a 
town of the Horite™* tetrapolis, the capital of which was Gibeon. The four 


“The correction of ‘‘Hivite’’ to ‘‘Horite’’ is due originally to Epuarp MEYER, 
Israeliten und thre Nachbarstimme, p. 331. JPOS II, 128 f., the writer opposed his 
view, but he is now inclined strongly to favor it. There is practically no difference in 
the appearance of the Hebrew words ‘\py and fy, so the interchange is very natural. 
G offers ‘‘Horites’’ for the ‘‘Hivites’’ of M in two important passages, Gen. 34, and 
Jos. 9;, the only two cases in which either people is associated with a definite Palestinian 
habitat outside of Gen. 36, where the maternal ancestors of the Edomites appear both 
as Hivites and as Horites. In the lists ‘‘Hivites’’ occurs consistently, but these lists 
are all from the latest stratum of the Hexateuch, and have no independent value. In 
view of the fact that a large number of the proper names from Palestine found in the 
Amarna Tablets are specifically Hurrian (i. e., Mitannian, Mitanni being the name of 
the principal Hurrian state), as the decipherment of the Boghaz-kéi texts has proved 
conclusively, we can only conclude that G and Epuarp Meyer are right and that M is 
wrong. The form Hori for Hurri is precisely like mor for murr — Assyr. murru 


APPENDIX I.—MIZPAH AND BEEROTH 105 


Horite towns are mentioned in the order: Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, 
Kirjath-jearim. Gibeon, of course, is ej-Jib; Chephirah is undoubtedly 
Hirbet Kefireh, with identically the same name, and a strong position on a 
hill-top two miles north of Qaryet el-‘Inab or Abii G68 (Kirjath-jearim). 
This order cannot be taken seriously, since there is no possible site for 
Beeroth anywhere between Abii G6S and Hirbet Kefireh. Since the others 
follow in geographical order from northeast to southwest, it is clear that 
Beeroth is out of place. What its true place in the list was must be deduced 
from other passages. It is not fair to conclude, as some have, that because 
Gibeon is mentioned as having taken the initiative in treating with Israel 
it was regarded as the nearest. The whole purpose of the story is to explain 
the existence of the Canaanite remnant in Gibeon; tradition associated the 
four cities together. The same collocation, with the exception of Gibeon, 
which is omitted, is found in Ezra 2,,, where the population of Kirjath- 
jearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth is mentioned. Since the two following 
verses name in order Ramah and Geba, Bethel and Ai, it would seem that 
Beeroth must lie between Chephirah and Ramah. Turning now to Jos. 
18,,_. for comparison of the list of Benjamite towns there, we find the order: 
Gibeon, Ramah, Beeroth, Mizpeh, Chephirah. Since the direction indicated 
by the first two names is toward the northeast, and that of the last two is 
toward the west, one would instinctively look for the third town, Beeroth, 
along the northern line, that is, at Qalandieh, Tell en-Nasbeh, or Beittinia. 
Nor are we wrong, as will presently appear. 

IT. Sam. 4,; says: For Beeroth also was reckoned to Benjamin; and the 
Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and were sojourners there until this day. The 
observation is a parenthesis to the mention of two of Saul’s officers, Baanah 
and Rechab, the sons of Rimmon, ‘‘the Beerothite, of the children of Ben- 
jamin.’’ From this passage it is clear that the Beerothites occupied Gittaim 
in the time of David. Gittaim must have been in Benjamin, not far from 
Beeroth, and probably nearer Kirjath-jearim and Chephirah, a supposition 
which would help to explain why the inhabitants of Beeroth, that is, the 
Beerothites, are named with those of these two towns. We further learn 
that Beeroth was on the Benjamite border, and the remark FINS O33 'D 
j>°33 ‘SY Swnmn shows that it was a Benjamite outpost or enclave in non- 


(myrrh) and Amori for Amurri; short accented 0 becomes u in Hebrew, while the 
doubling of the r is given up. In Gen. 36 we should read ‘‘Hivite’’ throughout for 
‘¢Horite,’’ following v. 2. The Semitic names show that we have to do with a Semitic 
people, which the Hivites evidently were. The etymology of the name is only obscure 
because of an embarrassment of riches: among plausible sources are Heb. hawwah— 
Hiwwim stands for *Hawwim—‘‘camp’’ = Ar. hayy (for *hawy) ‘‘tribe’’?; Hawwah, 
‘Hive’? (as the ancestress or patron goddess); Aram hiwya= Ar. hayyah (for 
*hawyat), ‘‘serpent’’ (many Semitic and Hamitic tribes trace their origin to a serpent 
progenitor). 


106 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


Benjamite territory. One might be in doubt as to whether Beeroth lay on 
the northern or southern border, but the list in Joshua strongly favors 
the former alternative, as do most of the other indications. 

Where was Gittaim?!* A partial response is furnished by an important 
geographical list Neh. 11,,.;, which is arranged in unusually systematic 
order. First comes the list Geba, Michmash, Aija, Bethel, following. a 
rigid order from south to north, along the road described in Appendix IV, 
‘‘The Assyrian March on Jerusalem, Isa. 10, 3..’? Then come Anathoth, 
Nob, Ananiah (Bethany; see Appendix VIII), with an equally exact order 
from north to south. Next we move to the north of Jerusalem, with the 
eroup Hazor, Ramah, Gittaim. Finally in vss. 34-5 we are carried to the 
northwest, with Hadid, Zeboim, Neballat, Lod, and Ono, that is, Haditeh, 
Beit Kifeh (?), Beit Nebalah,?> Ludd, and Kefr ‘Ana. The central group 


4 Under no circumstances can Gittaim be identified with the Gittham (T.@éau) of the 
Onomasticon, p. 72, 3, which Eusebius combines erroneously with Gath. This Gittham 
lay on the road which led from Antipatris to Jamnia. For the modern equivalent 
THOMSEN (Loca Sancta, s. v.) suggests Ramleh, but this is too far from the road in 
question, and there is good reason to suppose that Ramleh was a new foundation. I 
would provisionally suggest Hirbet Surafend as the site. The place, which was a large 
village in the time of Eusebius, may be already mentioned in a letter of the Amarna 
period, found at Gezer, and published by Macauistrr, Vol. I, pp. 29-31. On this frag- 
ment we find the towns of Kiddim (for *Gittim; ef. Makida and Magidda, etc., for 
Megiddo) and Joppa (Yappti) mentioned in close association. The text has been 
erroneously termed ‘‘Neo-Babylonian,’’ but the ductus is characteristic Amarna style. 
The forms as-sum mi-ni-im, i-na-di-in, ete., are emphatically not Late Babylonian, but 
good Amarna. While this suggestion is doubtful, the combination of Gittaim with Hg. 
Kntwt or Amarna Gamtéti (ef. WEBER in KNuUDTZON’s El-Amarna Tateln, p. 1345 f.) 
is quite impossible.—For another town of a similar name, called an Gdn Te0Geu in the 
Onomasticon (loc. cit.) ef. CLERMONT-GANNEAU, Archaeological Researches, Vol. II, p. 
196, note, and ABEL, JPOS II, 179. 

The name Neballat (933) can hardly be explained in any other way than as 
haplology for a *Nebo-uballat, like Sin-uballat (Sanballat)—the vocalization Sin-uballit 
is wrong. Arabic Nebdlah is morphological adaptation and popular etymology (nebdlah 
is ‘‘skill, ability’’). It is likely that the name of Bir Nebalah goes back ultimately to 
the same mysterious Nebo-uballat, presumably a powerful Assyrian governor of Samaria 
at the beginning of the seventh century (cf. JBL XL, 111, n.17). For the naming of 
Palestinian towns after powerful rulers cf. Gib‘at Sail, the Caesareas and Philadelphias 
of the Graeco-Roman age, and the places called after ‘Amr ibn ez-Zahir in the eighteenth 
century. The full form of the name was presumably *Bét-Nebd-uballat. Since the pre- 
ceding was written, MoNnTGOMERY has offered the suggestion (JAOS XLIII, 50) that 


o33 stands by BartH’s Law for 193). The stem yo is specifically Assyrian, 
and BartH’s Law does not apply to Hebrew. The examples cited are hardly sufficient 
to prove its existence here; WPA) is borrowed from an Assyr. *nabrastu for 
*nabrartu (Hativy), while WS YIP does not come under the law at all. Since ma‘ yan 
mé Neftoh is not Hebrew, while ma‘ yan Méneptdh is supported by documents, phonology 


APPENDIX I.—MIZPAH AND BEEROTH 107 


clearly follows the order from south to north, since Hazor (8M) has been 
identified with Hirbet Hazztir, an extensive ruined village a mile east of 
Nebi Samwil, and two and a half miles southwest of er-Ram. The only 
possible identifications seem to be Qalandieh and Rafat, since Jedireh is the 
Gederah mentioned I Chr. 12, in a list of Benjamite towns, along with 
Gibeah, Beth Azmaveth, Anathoth, and Gibeon. Kefr ‘Aqab and Kefr Tas 
are villages with a history extending back at least into the Aramaic period, 
as shown by the names; neither of them can well be combined with Gittaim. 
Rafat has an obscure name, which does not seem Arabic, though the combi- 
nation with Yirpe’el (Jos. 18,,) is phonetically improbable. On the other 
hand, Qalandieh (pronounced Qalandi) bears a name which may be a cor- 
ruption of a *Qal‘at el-Hindi (cf. Qastineh for Qasr et-Tineh) °° and surely 
is not ancient; a suggested combination with Latin calendae is nebulous. 
The situation is good, and there are tombs and other ancient remains in 
the immediate vicinity. If this identification is correct, Gittaim lay about 
two miles northwest of Ramah and the same distance southeast of Beeroth = 
Tell en-Nasbeh. It is interesting to note that in two lists Beeroth is eol- 
located with Ramah, while in a third Gittaim is mentioned with Ramah, and 
in a fourth passage Gittaim and Beeroth are associated. The three towns 
were surely neighbors. The location suggested for Gittaim would also help 
to explain II Sam. 4,;. If the men of Beeroth were forced out of Tell 
en-Nasbeh by hostile tribesmen from the north, possibly in connection with 
the civil war described in the last chapters of Judges, they would naturally 
retire southward across the border, which according to Appendix VI ran 
between Tell en-Nasbeh and Qalandieh, past ‘Attarah. At all events we 
find that Gittaim was an important town in the tenth century, at the time 
of Shishak’s raid, cir. 928 B. C., since this Pharaoh mentions Gittaim (No. 
25: Q-d-t-m)*® after Gibeon (Q-b-‘-n) and Beth-horon (B-t-h-w-r-n), and 
before Ajalon. Shishak’s geographical order is as inexact as that of his 
predecessors. 

As just pointed out, Beeroth was abandoned early in Israelite history, 
but was later reoceupied, perhaps after the Exile, only to be deserted again 
for Ataroth, just south of the springs at its foot, in Roman times, There 
is nothing here which is inconsistent with biblical indications. While 


and Hebrew idiom, Von CAticr’s explanation can hardly be wrong. MONTGOMERY’S 
explanation of 55 is very plausible; in this case *naptal, like most names of 
instruments in West Semitic, is an Akkadian loan-word. 

1a A ruin west of Deir en-Nizim is called Qal‘at Hind, but this Hind is clearly the 
daughter of en-Nu‘man, famous in Arab folklore. 

1% The d-t indicates the doubling of the ¢, just as b-p sometimes stands for double b. 
In Egyptian, as in English, consonantal doubling was lost, so the need of a method of 
indicating foreign consonantal doubling was sometimes felt. 


108 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


Beeroth seems to have lain north of the boundary between Ephraim and 
Benjamin in the time of the United Kingdom, when II Sam. 4, was com- 
posed, it is quite possible that Ataroth Archi is mentioned in the description 
of the boundary because at the time when Joshua was composed Beeroth 
was deserted. The two towns, Beeroth and Ataroth, were twins, as appears 
from the fact that they are mentioned in Crusading records as the casale 
Atarabereth (R6uricuHt, ZDPV 1887, 204; Dauman, PJB 1914, 17). 

The fact that the name still existed in the period of the Crusades suggests 
that the statement regarding the site of Beeroth in the Onomasticon is 
probably based on accurate information. Now let us turn to the vexed 
subject of its interpretation. According to Eusebius Bypo6 lay tro riv 
TaBadv, kal gore viv Kwon wAnoiov Aidias KatidvTwy ext Nuxdmodw amd C onpetwv. 
GuTHE’s explanation of the first phrase as ‘‘zu Gibeon gehoérig’’ (MNDPV 
1912, 4) is very strange, and not only contradicts the usage of Husebius, 
but also the very natural interpretation of Jerome—sub colle Gabaon. 
Otherwise there is no difficulty about the passage, except for an uncertainty 
in reading a vital word. Jerome offers us Neapolim instead of Nicopolim, 
as we should expect after reading the current Greek text of the passage. 
The quotation of our passage given by Procopius of Gaza (cf. Guthe, loc. 
cit.) reproduces the textus receptus of Eusebius, but is no guarantee that 
the form preserved in the Greek MSS of Eusebius is preferable. Fortu- 
nately, we are not restricted to guesses, but have a textual indication of the 
clearest in favor of Jerome’s reading. In the text of the Onomasticon, a 
few lines above the account of Beeroth, s. v. ByOwpev, the road to Nicopolis 
is mentioned; here it is in place, and since no such name occurs in the 
following lines until we reach our passage, it is obvious that the current 
Eusebian reading is dittographic, and that Jerome’s Neapolis is correct. 

If now we turn from literary sources to topography, we will find our 
result amply confirmed. On the Nicopolis road, which branched off from 
the main north-bound road a little north of Tell el-Ffl, continuing to the 
northwest between Hirbet ‘Addaseh (Adasa) and ej-Jib, on to Beth-horon, 
there are no sites which fit Beeroth at all. The suggestions made by GuTHE 
and THOMSEN (see above) are out of the question from every point of view. 
DaLMAN’s idea that Eusebius thought erroneously of Hirbet el-Biyar, 
because of the similarity in name, is quite gratuitous, since the name, ‘*‘ Ruin 
of the cisterns,’’ is strictly modern. For the same reason Bir Nebalah is 
not to be considered. DauMAN’s own identification, Biddd, is nowhere near 
the Nicopolis road, is in the heart of Benjamin, instead of being on the 
border, and has neither wells (see below) nor ancient remains. We are, 
therefore, forced by topographical considerations as well as text-critical into 
accepting Jerome’s reading ‘‘ Neapolis.”’ 

If we measure seven Roman miles along the road to Neapolis-Nablus we 


APPENDIX I.—MIZPAH AND BEEROTH 109 


find ourselves just south of Tell en-Nasbeh, the only available Israelite and 
Canaanite site in the vicinity; from Jerusalem to Tell en-Nasbeh is seven 
Roman miles in a straight line, a little more by road. The Roman settle- 
ment was partly at the foot of Tell en-Nasbeh and partly a little further 
south, at Hirbet ‘Attarah, as observed above. It is very possible that the 
modern town of el-Bireh has borrowed its name from the ancient Beeroth, 
though it is too far north of the border to be seriously considered as being 
on the site of the ancient town, and lacks the requisite ancient remains. 
The distance between Tell en-Nasbeh and Bireh is only a mile and a half, 
less than that between ancient and modern Jericho, to mention only one of 
many familiar cases. However, there is a fine spring at Bireh, which sup- 
plies both Bireh and Ramallah with water, from which the name may have 
been independently derived. 

There can be no doubt that Heb. be’erdt means ‘‘wells,’’ and that for- 
mally Arab. Bireh may be derived from it. DauMAn has strangely denied 
this (PJB VIII, 19), but his discussion can only be considered a case of 
Homeric nodding. In the first place Heb. be’er (pronounced bér for bi’r; 
the Masoretic pointing is an attempt to harmonize historical spelling with 
actual pronunciation) never means ‘‘cistern,’’ as DALMAN states, thinking 
of Arabic bir,” but always ‘‘well, shaft of a fountain, where ground-water 
is tapped,’’ as anyone may satisfy himself by examining all the passages 
where the word occurs. The regular Hebrew word for ‘‘cistern’’ is bér, 
properly ‘‘pit.’’ Accordingly, the proper name Be’erét could only have 
been applied to a place where there was an abundance of ground water, 
such as Tell en-Nasbeh. In the second place, Bireh may perfectly well be 
derived from Be’erét. Heb. Be’er(ah) appears in the Onomasticon, p. 54, 
26, aS Bypa, the modern Hirbet el-Bireh. As for the reduction of the | 
suffix, we have only to recall such examples as ‘Anatot-‘Andtah, Bét- 
horon—Beit-‘ur, Gibsén—ej-Jib, Mod‘it-Mod‘in—Midieh, ‘ Abdén-‘ Abdeh, 
Kesalon-Kesla, ‘Akkarén-‘Akir, ete. This small collection, which might 
easily be extended almost indefinitely, is enough to show the futility of 
such discussions as that by GurTuHE, op. cit., p. 4. DALMAN’s attempt to 
derive Bireh from ‘aramiaisches bira ‘‘Burg’’ ’ is wholly superfluous; inci- 
dentally it may be observed that the Aramaic word is birtd, birah being 
naturally Hebrew. 

As our result we have found a number of prerequisites which must be 
satisfied before we can identify any site with Beeroth. As shown by the 


47Jn modern Palestinian Arabic ‘‘well’’ is ‘ain or bayydrah, not bir, though rare 
exceptions to this rule may doubtless be found. Semantic divergences of a similar type 
between closely related languages are very common: e. g., Heb. 5dr is ‘‘ox’’ while Ar. 
taur is ‘‘antelope’’; Ar. nir is ‘‘light,’’? but Aram. nira@ is ‘‘fire’’; Eg. Ar. bd) 
means ‘‘peach,’’ but Syr. Ar. }d is ‘‘plum.’’ 


110 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


name, there must be ground water enough to permit the profitable sinking 
of more than one well. Tell en-Nasbeh fills this requirement admirably, 
since the southeastern slopes of the tell are soggy with the water which 
oozes through the earth from a number of buried sources. This water is 
available for irrigation purposes during the entire dry season, when Han 
Abii Skandar always forms a beautiful oasis of green amid the brown deso- 
lation of summer. In ancient times there were a number of reservoirs here 
for the purpose of catching and storing the precious moisture. 

Beeroth was a member of the Horite tetrapolis, and therefore ought to 
exhibit a tell, like the other three towns, Gibeon, Kirjath-jearim, and 
Chephirah. Gibeon, the capital of the confederacy, has the finest tell in-the 
whole region, as to be expected. Chephirah also has a beautiful tell, though 
small, evidently representing the acropolis alone. The site of ancient 
Kirjath-baal, or Kirjath-anab, the Kirjath-jearim of Judah, is represented 
by the hill of Deir el-Azhar, covered with masses of stones and débris, four 
metres deep on the summit, and strewn with Israelite pot-sherds; Deir 
e8-Seih, with which Laurrs wishes to identify the ancient town, is a poor 
site, and all the sherds are Byzantine and Arabic.8 From the west Deir | 
el-Azhar still exhibits the characteristic shallow truncated form of a tell, 
but the extensive building operations of the Catholic fathers have materially 
altered the appearance of the hill as seen from other sides. If we place 
Beeroth at Tell en-Nasbeh we have a tell which, though much inferior to the 
beautiful tell at Gibeon, is superior to Deir el-Azhar both in shape and 
size, and superior to Hirbet Kefireh in size, though inferior in shape. It 
may be added that the Canaanite wall of Beeroth seems to be preserved in 
sections of the modern terrace walls, which accounts for the perfect tell 
form of Tell en-Nasbeh. Deir el-Azhar almost certainly has a greater depth . 
of débris, but owing to the decay of the Canaanite fortifications the ruins 
are rather shapeless, which is likely to give a false impression at first. All 
four sites share pottery types, though Gibeon has more Canaanite sherds 
and Kirjath-jearim more Israelite. All four sites, again, agree as to their 
general situation on prominent, naturally defensible hills just above large 
springs. 

A new argument for the identification of Tell en-Nasbeh with Mizpah 
was advanced by PuHytTHIAN-ADAMs, in a paper read before the Palestine 
Oriental Society Dec. 7, 1922. Here he suggested that the bér into which 
Ishmael threw the bodies of his victims (Jer. 41,), and which, according to 
the text, had been made by Asa ‘“‘because of Baasha king of Israel’’ was 
a dry moat dug across the neck of the hill at the northern end of Tell 


** The question of the site of Kirjath-jearim is now treated by Mr. Francis T. Cooke 
in this Annual. 


APPENDIX I.—MIZPAH AND BEEROTH late 


en-Nasbeh. Now the possibility that a dry moat, like that one found by 
ScHUMACHER in Megiddo, existed here cannot be denied, but bér means 
‘‘nit, cistern,’? not ‘‘moat,’’ which is aris in the Zakir inscription and 
harisu in Assyrian. Since the language of Zakir is practically Hebrew, we 
may be confident that the word haris was also used in biblical Hebrew in 
this sense. The bér was a large cistern dug in order to ensure a supply of 
water in case of a prolonged siege. Such a cistern would be an ideal place 
in which to conceal bodies, but a dry moat, outside the walls of a city, would 
be the worst possible place for the purpose. 

Tell en-Nasbeh is a promising site for excavation, especially since there is 
no modern village there to interfere with operations, pace the P. EH. F. map. 
One may suspect with reason that excavations here would bring to light a 
subterranean tunnel leading up from a hidden source, as at Gibeon and 
other Canaanite towns. 


APPENDIX JI—RAMAH OF SAMUEL 


Where was the home of Samuel? This question may sound easy, but 
few problems of biblical topography have received so many different solu- 
tions. This divergence of views, moreover, may be traced back to the 
church fathers, who give us already two widely different localizations. If 
we turn to modern students, the theories vary so much that they present a 
perfect chaos. Some place Samuel’s home in southwestern Ephraim, some 
in central, and some in southern; several sites in Benjamin compete for 
the honor, and even Judah attracts other topographers. In this study the 
writer will defend a theory which is not altogether new, and has, at least, 
the merit of being a via media, since Ramallah is almost in the center of 
the possible sites suggested by previous scholars. 

Before proceeding to the analysis of the biblical material, let us pass 
briefly in review some of the principal theories advanced hitherto. First 
there is the classical theory of Eusebius (Onom. 32, 21-8; 144, 27-9)1 who 
found Ramah of Samuel (Armathem) and Arimathea both in the town of 
Remphthis (Remphis is corrupt, as Jerome’s version shows) near Diospolis, 
which is admitted now by all to be Rentis, a village in a favorable location 
on the edge of the Plain of Sharon, nine miles northeast of Ludd. Jerome 
was disturbed by Eusebius’s listing the place twice, once as Armathem and 
a second time as Ruma, so he inserted under Ruma the remark a plerisque 
(Arimathaea) nunc dicitur. Bunt was certainly wrong in supposing that 
Jerome had Beit Rimeh also in mind; Beit Rimeh is mentioned in the 
Talmud under the same name, which is thus, as one might assume from its 
having no Arabic significance, an ancient place-name, not to be considered 
in connection with Ramathaim or Arimathea. Jerome was probably think- . 
ing of the then new identification of Ramathaim with Nebi Samwil (see 
above on Mizpah). Eusebius’s theory is now held by many scholars, 
notably Dauman, PJB IX, 37-8. 

The great distance from Rentis to Shiloh and Gibeah, respectively over 
sixteen and twenty miles in a straight line, is such an obstacle to the correct- 


‘1 Onomasticon (ed. KLOSTERMANN), 32, 21-3: ’Apuadeu Deda. mdds’Edkavad cal Dapounr. 
xeirar dé arn wAnolov Avorrddews, bev Fv Iwo, 6 év EvayyeNlous dd’ Apiuabias, Jerome.adds 
that it was in regione Thamnitica, a statement which applies, from the geographical 
point of view alone, quite as well to Rentis as to Beit Rimeh. The second passage, 
Onom., 144, 27-9, reads: ‘Pouud. 7 Kal’ Apiud. @vOa éxdbicev’ ABiuuédXex ev Kpirais. viv airy 
Peudls (J: Remfthis) Néyerar kal ru év dplois Atcoorddews, ris éorly (J: a plerisque dicitur) 
Apimabata, 


APPENDIX II.—RAMAH OF SAMUEL ila is 


ness of Eusebius’s view, that to many, as to the writer, it has appeared quite 
untenable. Moreover, as will be seen below in our discussion of the topo- 
graphical details of Saul’s journey in search of his father’s asses, it cannot 
be squared with our other data. 

At Rentis itself there is no trace of Christian or Moslem shrines of Samuel, 
nor is there any tradition, unless a new one has grown up under the influence 
of DauMaANn’s school, which connects Samuel with the site. Eusebius’s 
idea is proved by his own material to be based purely upon the similarity 
in name; Remphthis does indeed represent a Raméth in all probability (cf. 
Ramoth-Gilead = Remteh). In the first passage (see above), Eusebius 
identifies Remphthis with Ruma and Arima of Judges, as well as with 
Arimathaea, but does not mention Ramathaim; in the second passage he 
locates the latter, which he identifies with Arimathaea, in the same district 
of Diospolis, but without alluding to Ruma and Arima. The whole tenor 
of the passages shows that he had no basis for his combinations except 
similarity of name. 

Most striking of all, however, is the fact that Eusebius’ suggestion was 
totally disregarded by his contemporaries. In the fifth and sixth centuries 
we find that Nebi Samwil, the ancient Mizpah, has been chosen by all as the 
site of Ramathaim, presumably also as that of Arimathaea. This is attested 
by Procopius, Theodosius (ch. 6), the Map of Madeba, and the archaeological 
material on the site, as has been described fully in Appendix I. Though 
adopted by the Crusaders, the Nebi Samwil theory has not found favor in 
recent times, perhaps partly because the site is a noted Muslim holy place. 
The only modern scholar to defend it seriously is GuERIN, who has devoted 
a long study (Judée, I, 362-4) to the subject, without, however, attempting 
a systematic analysis of the biblical data. 

Protestant scholars, not considering. the medieval testimony as of any 
value, and seeing the improbability of Eusebius’s theory, were at first 
strongly swayed by the location of the Tomb of Rachel near Bethlehem. 
The combined biblical, Jewish and patristic tradition seemed to them to 
establish the authenticity of the Tomb of Rachel near Bethlehem. Accord- 
ingly, they attempted to work out a route for Saul which would take him 
back to Gibeah by way of Bethlehem, an effort which inevitably led to fanci- 
ful localizations of Ramathaim to the south and west of Bethlehem. Thus 
Rosinson, Biblical Researches, Vol. I, p. 8, proposed Soba, which was long 
considered a serious possibility, because of Ropinson’s great authority. 
RoBINSON’s suggestion was based on a fancied resemblance of the modern 
names to (Ramataim) has-Sofim and (eres) Suf. With the development of 
philological method, however, it was recognized that Sdbdé cannot be identical 
with Sofim or Stuf; besides, the name is not Arabic, but is ancient, and 
almost certainly identical with the Swpys or EwBys of the famous passage of 


114 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


the Septuagint, Jos. 15,5. which has been lost in the Hebrew text.? Of the 
other western theories, those supporting Ramleh and Réntiyeh, both out on 
the plain, and not in Mount Ephraim at all, on any interpretation, owe their 
existence only to assonance of name and Eusebius’s statement that 
Remphthis lay near Diospolis (Ludd). 

The southern theories are still stranger. VAN DE VELDE (Syria and 
Palestine, Vol. II, pp. 48-53) wished to identify Ramathaim with Hdéram 
Ramet el-Halil, two miles north of Hebron, east of the road! This pioneer 
fancy would not deserve attention, were it not for the fact that it tends to 
appear again suddenly in popular books, whose authors have no conception 
of topographic methods, but know that the true site is a bone of contention, 
with the most diversified suggestions. The massive ruins are, of course, 
Roman, and the name, which is found all over Palestine, has reference, we 
may suppose, to some very ancient shrine on a neighboring hill; the haram 
itself is on the hill-side. More serious was Scuick’s idea, following sugges- 
tions thrown out by Bircu and others, that Ramathaim lay just southwest of 
Bethlehem (PEF 1898, 7-20). This localization was naturally due to the 
Tomb of Rachel, but the sites proposed by Scuick and others are quite desti-. 
tute of ruins from the biblical period and highly improbable in themselves as 
the sites of ancient villages. The name er-Rdm, which some travelers have 
thought they could localize near Bethlehem, is quite unknown to any native, 
and is obviously not genuine. Though the whole southern hypothesis was 
vigorously and convincingly refuted by Gautier (PEF 1898, 135-7), and 
has not appeared before the forum of scholarship for many years, it is not 
quite extinct in more remote circles, and may yet emerge to vex our souls. 
These hypotheses are nearly all philologically defective, aside from the 
topographical difficulties involved. Finally, there. is a suggestion which 
has not received much attention, though we owe it to the genius of Ewa tp, 
that Ramathaim is modern Ramallah (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Vol. II, 
p. 550). This is the writer’s view, and the following pages will be devoted 
to a defense of it. 

It must first be noted that there is no a priori objection to the identifica- 
tion of Ramallah with Ramathaim. The names are practically the same. 
The name Ram-allah, ‘‘Ram of God,’’ is always felt by the natives to con- 
tain the name of God, and it is thus very probable that it has been added 
by the Christian population to distinguish their Ram from the neighboring 


* This identification is more likely than that with modern Saris, though one reading 
of G (A) resembles the latter so closely that the identification is often made (e. g. 
BuuHL, Geographie, p. 167). But an almost fatal objection is that Saris is northwest of 
a line joining Kirjath-jearim and Chesalon, and hence within the territory assigned to 
the tribe of Dan. Moreover, while there are few ancient remains at Saris, there are a 
great many at Sdéba. 


APPENDIX IIl.—RAMAH OF SAMUEL 115 


Muslim Ram, ancient Ramah. In view of the constant sloughing off of final 
syllables and endings which we observe in the transmission of Palestinian 
place-names, there is no philological difficulty involved, especially since the 
form Rdmdéh is found along with Ramathdim in the Bible. It may be 
regarded as certain that the name Rdm-(allah) is ancient, since Ramallah 
is one of the highest points in the whole central part of Palestine, with a 
splendid view, and the name Raémdéh would fit it admirably. Nor is there 
any conflicting identification; Grorce ADAM SmiTH’s combination with the 
**hill of God’’ will be shown in the discussion below to be untenable. 

It is hardly conceivable that Ramallah was not occupied in ancient times. 
Few sites in central Palestine are so girdled with springs, springs on all 
sides, north, west, south, and east. The soil, moreover, is good, and the 
vineyards of Ramallah are the best in all Palestine, with the exception of 
Hebron. With such natural advantages, the site must have been occupied, 
and rock-hewn Jewish tombs attest the fact that it was. We will therefore 
turn, without initial prejudice against the identification, to consider the 
evidence to be drawn from the Bible. There are many references to Ramah, 
Samuel’s home, but few of them are of much use, except to indicate that it 
was not far from Gibeah, and not too near. Our principal source is the 
description of Saul’s visit to Samuel while in search of his father’s asses, 
I Sam. 9-10. 

We learn in I Sam. 9 that Saul set out from Gibeah in search of his 
father’s asses, taking with him a servant. The distance traversed cannot 
have been great, for asses are not accustomed to go fast or far from home 
when they stray. Moreover, 9,, tells us that they were lost only three 
days before Saul reached Samuel. Since a search demands careful inspec- 
tion of each village, as well as the adjacent wadis, and frequent conversation 
with passers-by, it is obvious that no great distance in a straight line could 
be covered in a day, least of all in central Palestine. The route would begin 
on one side, work around systematically until the whole encircling district 
had been combed for signs of the missing animals, and would finally con- 
verge on the starting-point. This is the only rational method of procedure 
in such a ease. It naturally makes little or no difference whether the 
account is actually historical, or only romantic—the narrator knew what he 
was talking about, and knew that his audience would detect him at once in 
lack of acquaintance with the realities of everyday life, though ready to 
swallow any improbability, if enveloped with a supernatural halo and well 
told. 

‘And he passed through mount Ephraim, and passed through the land 
of Shalisha, but they found them not: then they passed through the land 
of Shalim, and there they were not: and he passed through the land of the 
Benjamites, but they found them not. And when they were come to the 


116 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


9? 





land of Zuph Since Saul’s starting point was his father’s home in ~ 
Gibeah, there is evidently something wrong with this account; Gibeah was 
in the very center of Benjamin, so before reaching Mount Ephraim Saul 
must have traversed Benjamite soil. In other words, our text must have 
suffered a dislocation of its original order. If we transpose ‘‘Mount 
Ephraim”’ and “‘land of the Benjamites’’ we at once obtain sense, without 
any violence, since scribal confusion in copying a list containing two such 
closely related geographical terms as ‘‘Ephraim’’ and ‘‘ Benjamin’’ is most 
natural; most transpositions of words are caused by association of ideas. 
We now learn that Saul traversed Benjamin, after which he passed through 
Shalisha and Shalim, coming then to Mount Ephraim, and finally emerging 
in the land of Zuph, where in Ramathaim of the Zuphites the seer Samuel 
lived. In which direction would asses be most likely to stray from Tell 
el-Ful? Without presuming to follow their exact path, separated from us 
by three millenniums, I wish to point out that the fellah always goes down 
the wadi to look for animals—in this case toward the Ghér. Shalisha ought 
therefore to be located a short distance—not over ten miles—from Gibeah, 
toward the east. It is clearly to be connected with the Baal-shalisha of 
II Kings 4,,, a man of which brought a load of the first-fruits to Elisha at 
Gilgal, near Jericho.* Baal-shalisha cannot have been far from Gilgal, for 
the barley bread and ears were doubtless brought in fulfilment of a vow 
to Yahweh at the nearest shrine, just as the fellah might vow his first-fruits 
to Nebi Salih or another welt of the vicinity. The identity of Shalisha and 
Baal-shalisha is practically certain; for the interchange of names with 
Ba‘al and without it ef. CookE’s paper on the site of Kirjath-jearim (also 
Appendix VIII). Since there is no place for a Baal-shalisha in the eastern 
desert of Benjamin and Ephraim, where neither modern villages nor ancient 
ruins are to be found, we must go on down into Manasseh (ef. Appendix 
VI), where in the fertile valley of the ‘Auja there is a well-watered region, 
with several mounds and hirbehs, which would become a perfect paradise 
if properly irrigated, as in the days when Archelais flourished. After a 
survey of the plain of Jericho, still in Benjamite territory, the most natural 


* Many scholars, swayed by their identification of Shalisha with Kefr Tilt, identify 
the Gilgal of our passage with Jiljtlieh, the Galgoulis of Eusebius, who correctly identi- 
fies it with Gilgal of the ‘‘ Nations’’ (see my paper in Bulletin of the American Schools, 
No. 11). Others still identify it with Jiljilieh, an ancient Gilgal southwest of Sinjil. 
The writer is completely in accord with DALMAN’s theory of Gilgal; the views of SELLIN, 
KENT and others, who place Gilgal at Shechem, or at Jiljilieh, are devoid of solid basis, 
either documentary or archaeological. The first-mentioned view is incredible: the center 
of an invading clan of Mediterranean barbarians was not likely to have been chosen by 
the Israelites as a cult-center. The whole problem of Gilgal has been badly confused 
by recent writers; we need not discuss it at length here, since we hope to take it up 
again in the near future. 


APPENDIX IJ.—RAMAH OF SAMUEL 117 


course for Saul would be to go on north into the ‘Auja Valley, a glorious 
place for runaway donkeys to browse in. This region I would identify with 
the land of Shalisha. The usual identification, with Kefr Tilt,* now a ruin 
in the region north of Deir Gassaneh, and southwest of Samaria, some 
twenty-five miles in a straight line from Gibeah, is rejected by men of the 
best critical acumen, like Driver (Samuel?, p. 70). In view of the reason- 
able and natural development of our story, it seems hardly fair to introduce 
into it exploits which would be worthy of the Gilgames Epic, a realm in 
which not men but demigods are the heroes. One who has walked for 
weeks at a time over the hills and through the winding valleys of Palestine, 
as the writer has, will recognize the monstrous exploit credited to a man 
who was stopping everywhere to get news of his father’s asses. 

Turning away from the Jordan Valley, where there was nothing beyond 
the ‘Auja to attract an ass, Saul came to Shalim, that is Sa‘alim, or better 
Sai‘alim, probably meaning ‘‘Land of Foxes.’’ Disregarding ScuicK’s 
comparison with the district of the Beni Salim, a prominent Arab (now 
fellah) tribe (!), we may note that the usual identification with Sa‘labbim 
(‘‘Foxes’’—Arab. ta‘lab, Assyr. Sélibu), a town between Beth-shemesh and 
Ajalon, makes the improbability of the narrative, already serious in the 
ordinary interpretation, quite intolerable. A far more reasonable identifi- 
cation, from every point of view, is, however, at hand. I Sam. 13,, (see 
above on the site of Gibeah) says that a detachment of Philistines was sent 
from the camp at Michmas to forage in the direction of Ophrah and 
the land of Shual (Opry , ‘‘Fox’’). Ophrah is identified by all with 
et-Taiyibeh, formerly called ‘Afreh, as again demonstrated in Appendix 
ITI, so the land of Shual must be situated in the immediate neighborhood, 
preferably to the north, in the district of Rammiin (Rimmon) and Kefr 
Malik. There can be no doubt that the names *Si‘alim and Séi‘al are 
identical, since the endings on ancient Palestinian place-names count little 
or not at all. Now, if Saul ascended the ‘Auja Valley from Baal-shalisha, 
as would be natural, he would emerge at Kefr Malik, precisely in the region 
of the land of Shual. The next thing for him to do would be to scour the 
country to the south and west of Kefr Malik and Tell ‘Ast, which is 
precisely the district called originally Mount Ephraim (see Appendix III, 
toward the end). 

From Mount Ephraim two alternatives were open to Saul. Hither he 
might turn southward into Benjamin or he might push on west of Mount 


4Place-names beginning with Kefr are practically always of Aramaean origin, and 
certainly never of Hebrew (cf. Appendix VI). I know of only one case where the 
name introduced by Kefr seems to be older. Moreover, while Tilt for SaliSah might be 
a consonantal back-formation, by no means unparalleled, the two names have different 
vocalice structure, a fact much more difficult to harmonize. 


118 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


Ephraim proper, beyond Bethel and Gophna. If he chose the former, he — 
would have to declare himself beaten; if the latter, he would be entirely 
at a loss, since the asses had not been found in the Ghér, where they might 
normally be expected to be. So he selected the former, but his servant 
reminded him that there was a famous seer in the town to which they were 
coming now, and urged him to apply to the seer for assistance. Where 
was this town? The tenor of the narrative indicates that it was not much 
farther west of Mount Ephraim proper than a line drawn from Gibeah 
due north. Move exact data are forthcoming from an analysis of the return 
journey, after Saul had been anointed king by Samuel. 

Samuel tells Saul: When thou art departed from me today (D1) 
then thou shalt find two men by Rachel’s sepulchre in the border of Ben- 
jamin at Zelzah (Selsah, MYD¥).2 . . . Then shalt thou change thy 
course from thence, and shalt come to the Oak of Tabor, and there shall 
meet thee three men going up to God at Bethel: and they will salute thee, 
and give thee bread, which thou shalt receive of their hands. After that 


thou shalt come to the Hill of God (AINA AY3I) where is the ‘‘garrison”’ 
of the Philistines. Here he was to meet a band of prophets coming down 
from the high place (bamdh), and was to join them in their ecstatic worship. 
It is clear, in the first place, from the explicit statement ‘‘today’’ that 
Rachel’s tomb on the border of Benjamin was not more than a very short 
way from Ramathaim. Where was the tomb of Rachel? In view of the 
late Jewish tradition and the gloss to Gen. 35,,, ;, in an Elohistie passage,® 


* Cf. Driver, Samuel? ad loc. Selsah need not be corrupt, since it is a morphologically 
normal quadrilateral. It does not occur elsewhere, and the attempts to identify it with 
Zelah (Sela‘) where Saul was buried, cannot be taken seriously. The latter, by the 
way, is an abbreviation of Sela‘ ha-Elef (literally ‘‘ox rib’’), the name of a Benjamite 
town mentioned Jos. 18.; with Gibeah and Jerusalem (= Hirbet Ras et-Tawil?). 

° The consensus of opinion among commentators has justly regarded the biblical theory 
placing the tomb of Rachel near Bethlehem as late and erroneous. It would indeed be 
extraordinary if the tomb of Rachel were really localized in the early Israelite period in 
the territory of Judah, thus placing the birth-place of Benjamin five miles south of the 
Benjamite border. The whole question is thoroughly discussed by LInDER, SG 78-87, 
who stands, however, entirely on the old ground, and is unable to suggest any new points 
of view. Excellent is his detailed refutation of the view of CLERMONT-GANNEAU, devel- 
oped by MaAcaLisTer (PEF 1912, 74-82), that Ephrathis identical with Parah-Hirbet 
Farah, and that the Israelites localized the tomb of Rachel at the Qbir Beni Isra’in, 
in the valley north of Hizmeh. A priori, it is hardly credible that these long, bench- 
like structures of the Late Neolithic period should have been regarded by the Israelites, 
who considered all such remains as the work of the Rephaim (cf. Karer, Refaim), as 
the tomb of Rachel. 

I would suggest the following solution of the problem. The original (?) tomb of 
Rachel was situated near Ephraim (gentilie Ephrathi) or Ephrath (with same gentilic; 
the gentilic is often the tertiwm comparationis in the case of variant place-names, e. g., 
in names ending indifferently with 6 or 6n, gentilic 6ni—ef. Annual, II-III, p. 6, n. 6) 


APPENDIX II].—RAMAH OF SAMUEL 119 


one would look for it a little north of Bethlehem, about where it is now 
placed. Fortunately, however, Jer. 31,, proves clearly that the tomb of 
Rachel was also localized at Ramah, or in its immediate vicinity : 


Thus saith Yahweh, 
A voice has been heard in Ramah— _ Sighs and bitter weeping— : 
Rachel weeping for her children, Refusing comfort—they are dead. 


As will be shown in Appendix VI, the boundary of Benjamin ran about 
two miles north of er-Ram, from Burgah to Hirbet ‘Attarah. The tomb of 
Rachel probably, therefore, lay not far from Ataroth, by the road leading 
southward to Ramah.” Since Saul was bound homeward to Gibeah when 
he met the two.men at the tomb of Rachel (in accordance with the prin- 
ciple of vaticinium ex eventu) Ramathaim must have been situated north or 
northwest of Ramah, at no great distance, and may easily be identified with 
Ramallah, five miles by road northwest of er-Ram. 

But if Saul was en route to Gibeah from Ramallah, and turned at Rachel’s 
tomb to go up to Bethel, we should expect some indication of the change 
of direction in the text. Nor are we wrong. The A. V. renders, ‘‘Then 
shalt thou go on forward from thence.’? However, MNO) OWD NAN) 
ean only be translated in this way by assuming that gon has here a 
meaning ‘‘go on, of a man,’’ which is found nowhere else. The primary 
meaning of the stem is ‘‘change, pass,’’ employed poetically of wind, of 
-tempests, and of time (cf. Driver, Samuel,? ad loc.). EXHRLICH wishes to 
emend 45h to arial but this is hardly in accord with the principle of 
difficilior lectio. If we keep the word, pointing it perhaps as pi‘el, with 
the rendering, Thou shalt change (thy course) from there and beyond, no 
emendation is necessary, and we obtain an important substantiation of our 
interpretation of the topography. 


in the Wadi Samieh (Appendix III, end). As shown by the shrine and necropolis of 
Samieh, this valley was an ancient religious center of the district (later tribe) of Ephraim. 
When the Benjamites separated from Ephraim, and formed themselves into a separate 
group in the south (Ben-yamin = ‘‘Southerner’’) they soon found an appropriate site 
near Ramah, in the heart of their territory, for the tomb of their ancestress or patron 
goddess (in the days of heathenism). Finally, probably still later, a colony of Eph- 
rathites (i. e., Ephraimites) formed an enclave in northern Judah, in the district of Beth- 
lehem, whose inhabitants were called Ephrathites for centuries thereafter. This settle- 
ment would explain the tradition preserved in I Chron. 2,, that Ephrath was Caleb’s 
second wife. It is only natural that these Ephrathites also built a shrine to Rachel, 
which became regarded in the course of time as her tomb (just as in the case of the 
tomb of Joseph near Shechem). 

TA thorough archaeological examination of the neighborhood would probably give us 
a clue to the exact location of the tomb of Rachel here. This will be, I hope, a task 
performed by the American School. 


120 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


From Rachel’s tomb Saul went on toward Bethel, and soon came to the 
Oak of Tabor.* The mere fact that trees and tombs take.the place of towns” 
in Saul’s itinerary shows that the distance covered was very small. Since 
this oak was between Ramah and Bethel, one thinks immediately of another 
tree, also between Ramah and Bethel, and also in Mount Ephraim, north 
of the Benjamite border—the mysterious tomer Deborah of Jud. 4;. As 
has been seen (see especially JPOS I, 61, n. 3) the localization of the home 
of Deborah south of Bethel is due to the fact that the tomb of a Deborah, 
identified by tradition with the nurse of Rebekah, was shown south of 
(‘‘below’’) Bethel (Gen. 35,). The latter was shaded by an oak, the 
all6n bakit, or ‘‘Oak of Weeping.’’ Now témer does not mean ‘‘tree’’ at 
all, and least of all ‘‘palm-tree’’ (tamdr), because there are, of course, no 
palms around Bethel, three thousand feet above sea-level. Elsewhere in 
the Old Testament tomer means ‘‘post, scare-crow, herm,’’ or the like,® so 
here it is evidently either a special word for ‘‘sacred post, aserah,’’ or a 
euphemistic equivalent of asSerah. After the sacred tree, par excellence, 
the oak, had died, as all oaks do in the course of generations and centuries, 
a sacred post, properly the trunk of the tree, replaced it, a development. 
which was very usual in the ancient Orient. We need therefore have no 
hesitation in identifying the shrine of Deborah under the allon bakut with 
the oracle of Deborah under the tomer Deborah. The variation of G indi- 
cates that M is corrupt in its reading WIN NON: which may safely be 
emended to N37 NON, ‘‘Oak of Deborah,’’ especially since ‘‘Tabor’’ is 
the name of a mountain, not of a tree.’° 


*The problem is hopelessly complicated by the attempt of DALMAN and LiInDER (SG 
32-4) to combine the Oak of Tabor, the témer of Deborah, and Baal-tamar (Hirbet 
el-‘Adaseh; see above, on Gibeah). DALMAN places the product of this combination at 
Hirbet Erziyeh, while LINDER prefers Hara’ib er-Ram. Both locations are too far south. 
Moreover (see next note) tomer has nothing to do with tamdar, ‘‘palm.’’ 

* Jeremiah (10;) compares a wooden idol to a témer migsah, a tomer of a cucumber 
field, which cannot speak, which must be carried, for it cannot walk. The tdémer is 
here evidently a scarecrow, but hardly one of our type, rather a wooden pole shaped 
roughly like a human figure, more like a Greek herm. As shown by the cognates, the 
word means properly ‘‘sign-post’’; cf. Arab. tu’mir, ‘‘sign-post of heaped-up stones, 
stone pillar’’; dmarah, amdarah, ‘‘heap of stone, stone pillar, sign’’; Heb. timdrah, 
‘‘pillar, column.’’ All these words are derived from the stem ’mr, represented by 
Assyr. amdru, ‘‘see,’’? Eth. amméra, ‘‘show, indicate, explain,’’ Heb. amér in the 
secondary meaning ‘‘speak.’’ For the loss of the XX, ef. such forms as aia Assyr. 
tabalu, ‘‘dry land,’’ from ’bl, ‘‘be dry.’’ 

The name Tabér is probably of non-Semitic origin, since the various Semitic 
etymologies proposed are nonsense; tabdr could not mean ‘‘place of cisterns’’ on any 
morphological theory. Mount Tibar, of unknown location, where Naram-Sin set up a 
triumphal stele, has the same form; cf. lisa@n and laSén. While the places may be dis- 
tinct, the names are identical, and suggest that tibar may have meant ‘‘mountain’’ in 
some unknown Caucasian or other language. 


APPENDIX IJ.—RAMAH OF SAMUEL 121 


When Saul had been joined by the other three men, also bound for Bethel, 
he came soon to the Hill of God, where there was a Philistine garrison. 
Here there were some who knew him of old; his uncle was among them, 
and asked him where he had been. The theory often held that the ‘‘ Hill 
of God’’ was Gibeah of Saul, now defended at length by LinpEr (SG 89- 
96), is quite untenable, since it is flatly contradicted by the tenor of the 
narrative. A priori it is unthinkable that a town with the evil reputation 
of Gibeah should have become a famous shrine, entitled ‘‘Gibeah of God.’’ 
On the contrary this designation is evidently a kenning, designed to dis- 
tinguish a certain hill, where there was a popular shrine, from the neigh- 
boring Gibeah. A somewhat similar process has taken place with er-Ram 
and Ram-allah, as pointed out above. Grorae ADAM SMITH’s attempt to 
identify ‘‘Gibeah of God’’ with Ramallah is, however, quite out of the 
question, as justly maintained by LinpEr (SG 48 f.). 

With their approach to the Hill of God the narrative goes on: And they 
came thither to the hill, and, behold, a band of prophets met him; and the 
spirit of God took possession of him, and he became as a prophet in their 
midst. And when all those that had known him in the past looked—and 
behold, he had become a prophet among the prophets,—they said, each to 
the other, ‘‘ What has happened to the son of Kish; is Saul also among the 
prophets?’’ And one of them (read ON for DW with G) said in reply, 
‘‘But who is their father?’’—therefore it became a proverb, Is Saul also 
among the prophets? And he ceased being a prophet and came to the 
high-place. And Saul’s uncle said to him, ‘‘ Whither didst thou go?’’ And 
he said, “‘To seek my father’s asses . .’’ WELLUHAUSEN has suggested that 
we should read in 10,, TD NI) instead of M M37 NI"), ‘‘and he 
came to the high-place.’’ G, however, supports M here with its reading 
Bovves, though BuppE, whom Linper follows, prefers to translate Bovvos 
into Hebrew as YJ, its more usual equivalent (SG 92 f.). With so 
drastic a change, however, the corruption of M would become inexplicable. 
M seems to me much better than the suggested emendations; after leaving 
the prophets it would be only natural for Saul to go on to the shrine of 
Yahweh with the men who came to pay a vow, his companions. 

I Sam. 10, Samuel tells Saul that in the course of this eventful day’s 
journey he will come to the Hill of God, where the Philistine prefect (nasib ; 
read singular) is located. Since the latter observation serves only to local- 
ize the ‘‘ Hill of God’’ more accurately, this place cannot be identified with 
Saul’s home, which would not require any such an identifying parenthesis. 
Moreover, the Philistine prefect would not be stationed at an insignificant 
village, such as Gibeah of Saul then was. He would in all probability be 
placed at one of the Israelite religious and ‘‘civic’” centers, such as Shiloh, 
Mizpah, and Bethel. In view of the fact that Saul was bound fer Bethel 
(see above), we can only identify this Hill of God with the Burj Beitin, 


122 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


a few minutes east of Bethel, on a commanding elevation, where tradition 
placed the encampment of Abraham. Here, in all probability, was the 
bamah, and here also was the Philistine prefect with his garrison, stationed 
where he could control the visitors to the holy place, doubtless exacting tithes 
and contributions at his pleasure. 

LINDER’s elaborate discussion (loc. cit.) completely misses the point, in 
his anxiety to prove the identity of the ‘‘Gibeah of God’’ with Tell el-Fal. 
His theory does not explain any of the preceding considerations, nor does 
it explain how the men who set out for Bethel could come, as stated in 10,,, 
to the Hill of God. To find acquaintances of Saul at Bethel, apparently 
on a feast day, to judge from the procession of devotees (prophets), is 
nothing remarkable, since Gibeah was only seven miles away in a straight 
line, and Saul was known in the whole region as a mighty man of valor. 
The whole tone of the narrative, the way in which his uncle addresses him, 
as if in total ignorance of his journey, the length of which had so worried 
his father, show that the narrator was thinking of a meeting outside of 
Gibeah—unless, of course, we manufacture contradictions in order to dis- 
tinguish separate sources, which will then enable us to apply ‘‘eritical’’ 
methods to our topographic researches! 

The foregoing discussion has shown that a Ramathaim at Ramallah fits 
in admirably with the account of Saul’s journey in search of his father’s 
asses. The arguments sometimes drawn from I Sam. 9,,, 5;, which indicate 
that Ramathaim was situated on a hill-side, with a high-place on the hill-top 
above, fit Ramallah as well as they do any other Palestinian ‘site on a hill. 
While there is little other cogent evidence, we may derive some hints from 
other references. Hannah, Samuel’s mother, was able to take her small 
child and some gifts for the high priest, and go alone to Shiloh without 
apparent difficulty. Such a journey could not be made in a day from 
Rentis, as it could easily from Ramallah, distant from Shiloh only about 
twelve miles in a straight line. The fact again that Samuel appears to 
have been little disturbed in his ‘‘judgeship’’ by the Philistines, who con- 
trolled the country after a fashion, implies that his home was not at Rentis, 
on the edge of the plain, in the direct sphere of Philistine power. More- 
over, the many references to Ramah of Samuel during the latter part of 
Saul’s career indicate that Ramathaim was a town easily accessible from 
Gibeah, but not in its most immediate vicinity, just as is the case with 
Ramallah and Tell el-Fil, which are separated by several villages. We 
may therefore accept the identification of Ramathaim with Ramallah, 
secure in our exegesis of Saul’s itinerary, and untroubled by contradiction 
from the archaeological and philological side. If Ramallah and Ramathaim 
are not identical we have two extremely difficult problems to solve: where 
was Ramathaim, and what was the ancient name of Ramallah? 


APPENDIX IJ.—RAMAH OF SAMUEL 123 


If Ramallah is Ramathain, it is also probably Arimathaea, which is then, 
as we should expect from the form of the names, quite distinct from 
Remphthis-Rentis. The form of the name presents no difficulty ; Arimathaia 
stands for *Armathai<*Rmatham, an Aramaizing form of Hebrew 
Ramatham. For further discussion of the bearings of this identification 
we may refer to Appendix III. 

Of all the identifications defended in this work, probably none will meet 
with quite such a cool reception at the outset as the preceding one. Yet, 
as has been made sufficiently clear, I trust, the supporters of Rentis have 
an exceedingly weak case. We may venture, at least, to express the hope 
that Ewald’s theory will never again be treated as antiquated or fanciful. 


APPENDIX ITI—OPHRAH AND EPHRAIM. 


- 


When names are somewhat similar in form there is a great temptation 
to identify them. When places bearing names which bear a certain resem- 
blance are close together, the temptation is doubled. So it has been in the 
case of Ophrah, or Ephron, and Ephraim; the laudable desire for simplicity 
and elegance of solution has caused nearly all Palestinian topographers 
to combine them, and identify the composite town thus created with 
et-Taiyibeh. The identification was first proposed by Roprnson, Biblical 
Researches, Vol. I, p. 447, who was seconded by Guérin, Judée, III, 45-51, 
since when it has become almost axiomatic. Quite recently, however, the 
axiom has been doubted by THOMSEN and GuTHE. The writer came to the 
same conclusion independently, but differs from both in his identification 
of Ephraim with Samieh. In order to avoid the pitfalls of others, let us 
attack the problem anew, with a careful consideration of the materials 
available. While the evidence is not very abundant, it is well distributed, 
and clearer than usual in such eases. 

Ophrah (TMDY) occurs twice in the Old Testament; Ephron (/)7Dy) 
once; and Ephraim (O°9DN) twice, once in the Old and once in the New 
Testament. The town of Ophrah is mentioned first Jos. 18,,, in a very 
problematical list of place-names of Benjamin, nearly all of which are 
otherwise unknown—see the discussion in Appendix VI, where it will be 
shown that no conclusions can safely be drawn from this doubtful passage. 
The other occurrence of the name is in I Sam. 13,,, in a passage which has 
already been discussed in connection with the site of Gibeah. The Israelite 
army held the heights south of the Wadi es-Sweinit, around Geba, while 
the Philistine host seized the opposite side of the valley, about Michmash. 
Three plundering expeditions were sent out by the Philistines: one west- 
ward toward Beth-horon; one eastward in the direction of the Valley of 
Hyenas (Wadi Kelt?) and the desert (i. e. the Ghor) ; and the remaining 
one toward Ophrah and the land of Shual. Since north is the only direc- 
tion left untaken—the Israelites holding the south—it is clear that Ophrah 
lay north of Michmash, though at no very great distance. One thinks 
immediately of et-Taiyibeh, which forms a notable landmark almost due 
north of Muhmas. 

Ephron (qgeré Ephrain) is mentioned in II Chr. 138,,. In this passage 
the wars between Abijah of Judah and Jeroboam are described. Abijah 
is represented as gaining a great victory over the impious devotee of the 
golden calf, and as capturing from him the three towns of Bethel, Jeshanah, 
and Ephron, each with its villages. Now it is true that the account of this 


APPENDIX III.—OPHRAH AND EPHRAIM 125 


war is historically suspicious, and may safely be regarded as another of 
the Chronicler’s favorite historical romances ad majorem Dei gloriam.1 On 
the other hand, the list of towns is not affected in the least by an impugn- 
ment of the Chronicler’s historical and critical judgment, not to say imagi- 
nation. The Chronicler knew Palestine, and his lists always show a good 
geographical sense; we may accept this list as furnishing us with the names 
of the three most important towns of southeastern Ephraim in the pre-exilic 
period. 

In this list, the first name, Bethel, modern Beitin, naturally affords no 
trouble. Jeshanah, however, demands a special treatment. The name is 
an appellative, meaning the ‘‘old’’ town (DDN), and might be sought 
anywhere, so far as it is concerned. CLERMONT-GANNEAU has identified it 
with ‘Ain Sinieh, a place on the Nablus road, about a mile northeast of 
Jifneh. Since the site is very low and insecure, and there are no ruins of 
importance in the neighborhood, this identification is very improbable, 
especially since the names are really quite distinct—the time is past when 
one can juggle vowels in Semitic ad libitum, so long as the consonants are 
all right. I would therefore propose a new identification. About two and 
a half miles in a straight line northeast of ‘Ain Sinieh, and just north of 
Selwad, there is a beautifully situated ancient site known to the natives as 
Burj el-Isaneh. The ruined burj is a mediaeval Arabic construction, evi- 
dently a fortress, with some massive drafted stones of obviously Roman 
date built into the walls (ef. the Survey, II, 307-9). West of the fort is a 
Byzantine basilica, of rude workmanship, with tesselated pavement, and 
sculptured lintels, representing the Greek cross, among other things. <A 
few hundred metres to the south-east is a spring, ‘Ain es-Sarar, to which 
access is obtained by a very ancient flight of stone steps, now encumbered 
with débris. Between the spring and the burj the ground is covered with 
potsherds, mostly Roman, Byzantine, and Arabic, but also earlier Jewish. 


1Tn JBL, 1921, 104-124, the writer has tried to show that the Chronicler was none other 
than the scribe Ezra, who wrote about 375 B.C. There can be little doubt that many 
critics depreciate the historical value of his work unduly. On the other hand, Ezra’s 
interest was religious and administrative, not properly historical. His lists are most 
important, since they incorporate much material from old catasters, registers, and lists 
of administrative character, as well as interesting local traditions. On the other hand, 
his historical additions to the excerpts from Samuel and Kings are all in his own dis- 
tinetive style, and therefore represent popular legend and historical romance rather than 
documentary history. It is probable that all genuine historical works of the pre-exilic 
age perished in the Babylonian wars—aside from the canonical books. Doubtless, 
however, an abundance of documentary material of a legal and administrative character 
was still extant; it is a great pity that Ezra, like Livy, did not utilize the documentary 
sources, but copied from the older literary corpus, with additions from popular legend, 
embellished by learned and pious comments. 


126 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


The hill, which towers to a height of 3100 feet above sea-level, is in every 
way an admirable location for an ancient Israelite town; its desirability 
is shown by the fact that it continued to be occupied during Roman times, 
when so many elevated sites were deserted for more convenient lower ones. 
On the west it rises for several hundred feet above the modern carriage 
road from Jerusalem to Nablus, which it commands. Now, in Josephus, 
Ant. XIV, xv, 12 (= Wars I, xvii, 5) Herod defeats Pappus, the general 
of Antigonus, as the latter was marching from Jerusalem to Samaria, at a 
place called Isana, with the same spelling as given for biblical Jeshanah 
(Ant. VIII, xi, 3). There can be no doubt that ‘Ain Sinieh is a suitable 
place, but Burj el-Isaneh is equally suitable. It is true that the survey 
writes the name Burj el-Ivsdneh, but it makes the same mistake as when it 
offers Khirbet el-Lattatin for the correct Hirbet el-Atdatin (the sing., attin, 
means ‘‘lime-kiln’’). Since there is no such word—so far as the writer 
knows—as lisdneh in Arabic, ‘‘tongue’’ being lisén, the correction is evi- 
dent; the fellahin pronounce Burj Ilsdneh, for Burj il-(1)sdneh (ef. Burj 
ilmir for Burj il-Emir, near Deir Ghassaneh). 

In view of the height of Bethel and Isaneh, one is tempted to identify 
Ephron with the third highest town in the district—et-Taiyibeh. All three. 
were admirably adapted to be employed as fortresses, and all have been so 
used, especially Jeshanah and et-Taiyibeh. The name ‘Hfrén is undoubtedly 
identical with ‘Ofrah; Efrén is dissimilation of “Ofron, following the 
well-known Hebrew repugnance to the vocalic succession 6-6 or u-6 (ef, 
hison for hitson, ttkén for tokén, ris6n for rdsén, ete., and Gesenius- 
Kautzsch** p. 96). The interchange of 6n and ah, ete. at the end of Hebrew 
place-names is so common that it should attract no comment; ef. Appendix 
VII, on ‘Almén and ‘Alemeth. The reading of the qeré to the passage in 
Chronicles, which offers ‘Efraim, is due to a confusion which will be 
explained below. There is another Ephron on the Benjamite border, Jos. 
15,, but it is quite distinct.? 


* Since Jos. 18,, draws the southern border of Benjamin directly from Nephtoah 
(Lifta) to Kirjath-jearim (Abi Ghés), and neither Qastal (castellum) nor Kalénieh 
(colonia) are pre-Roman towns, there is no place here for the towns in Mount Ephron 
(py “\"t) mentioned Jos. 15,, in the account of the northern boundary of Judah. 
It is therefore clear that a phrase has been erroneously inserted from the margin.— 
Where did it belong originally? Now, in the following verse (15,) there is a bad 
lacuna: And (the border) passed over to the ridge of Mount Jearim, (running) north- 


ward (of it) - - ~ that is, Chesalon (~ = - ANDO ONY WF AND SN D3 
N2DD No). In the lacuna I would insert the passage, ‘‘and it went out to 
the towns of Mount Ephron qypy VW Ty SN NY?)),” thus making Mount Ephron 


equivalent to Chesalon (modern Kesli). It may be added that there are several large 
ancient ruins just south of Kesli, within a mile and a half, which may correspond to 
the towns of Mount Ephron. 


APPENDIX III.—OPHRAH AND EPHRAIM 127 


Turning now from Ophrah-Ephron to Ephraim, we find two certain 
biblical allusions to it. The first is in the Old Testament, II Sam. 13,,, 
which relates that Absalom had sheep-shearers in Baal-hazor, beside 
Ephraim (DNDN OY WN WYN OpaD). One might suspect that this 
‘‘Hphraim’’ was a mistake for ‘‘ Ephron,’’ with ‘ayin, if it were not for the 
other occurrence of the name, which is sufficiently clear. In the New Testa- 
ment, John 11,,, we are informed that Jesus, in order to rest and conceal 
himself for a time from the Jews, went from Jerusalem to a place near 
the wilderness, called Ephraim, where he remained until the passover 
(xHpav eyyts THs épymor, cis "Edpaiu Aeyouevnv wok). These two references are 
sufficient, however, to cast grave doubt upon the identification of Ephraim 
with Ephron, especially if the latter is et-Taiyibeh. The latter is too far 
south of Baal-hazor (Tell ‘Astr) to be accurately spoken of as ‘‘beside’’ 
it. Moreover, et-Taiyibeh could hardly have been the place where Jesus 
spent the weeks before the passover. Jesus spent his winters preferably 
on the Sea of Galilee or in the Jordan Valley; with his poverty and lack 
of a fixed residence, to say nothing of the band of disciples who had to be 
cared for, a warm abode was necessary for the summer months. Now 
et-Taiyibeh, with a height of 2850 feet, more than three hundred feet greater 
than that of Jerusalem (average), and a very exposed location, would be 
the last place in Palestine for Jesus to spend February or March. More- 
over, et-Taiyibeh is not really near the desert, being surrounded by culti- 
vated lands on all sides, as DauMAN justly remarks (Orte und Wege’, p. 
191), though he accepts the traditional identification. The location of 
Ephraim at Saémieh, proposed by the writer, avoids all these difficulties. 
As measured with an anaeroid, ‘Ain Samieh is only 1400 feet above sea- 
level, while et-Taiyibeh is 2850. In this beautiful valley, warm and lovely 
in February and March, with an abundance of water, and countless grottoes, 
Jesus could pass a quiet month or so before going up to Jerusalem for the 
Passover. Moreover, the valley is one of the hardest places in Palestine to 
reach, since it is far removed from the roads, and accessible only by an 
arduous descent over the worst path in Palestine. Jesus could find here 
the seclusion he wished, as well as the surroundings necessary for the band 
of disciples. 

Let us now turn to the extra-biblical material for our problem. I Mace. 
11,, (= Josephus, Ant., XIII, iv, 9) states that Demetrius IT gave Jonathan 
three districts of Samaria, to add to Judaean territory. As SCHLATTER 
(Zur Topographie und Geschichte Palistinas, pp. 243-5) points out, the 
decree of Demetrius was simply the de jure confirmation of a de facto Jewish 
control of these districts. ScHLATrER, following a somewhat doubtful state- 
ment of Josephus, supposes that Alexander had already given this territory, 
Judaized during the Persian period, to the Jews. It seems to me more 


128 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


likely that after the fall of Samaria into Assyrian hands, the pure-blooded- 
Israelites in southern Ephraim preferred the cult of Jerusalem to that of 
Shechem and Samaria, thus becoming automatically Judaized. If we can 
obtain a clue to the sections of Samaria which escaped colonization at the 
hands of the Assyrians, it will become easier to identify the three districts 
in question. The strength of the Samaritans lay in central and western 
Samaria, where later writers mention villages of theirs. In southern 
Samaria the colonies extended as far south as Beth-horon, the home of 
Sanballat’s family. Such an extreme extension in this direction is very 
natural; the Assyrian kings wished to guard against expansion of Jewish 
power into the new province of Samaria, which was now a border province 
—a fact which explains the existence of an Assyrian military colony on the 
southern boundary of Samaria. To the west the Samaritans controlled 
only as far as Hadid and Neballat, northeast of Lydda (Neh. 11,,;), so 
that the district of Lydda was Jewish. In the east, again, Jewish control 
extended farther north, including Bethel and Ai (Neh. 11,,). A consider- 
ably greater northward extension in this quarter is indicated by the later 
inclusion of Acrabattene itself in Jewish territory, a fact which would 
imply that the region to the south, between Judaea proper and Acrabattene, 
was already Judaized. 

The three districts added to the political territory of Judaea by Demetrius 
were named Aphaerema, Lydda, and Ramathem. As appears from the 
considerations already mentioned, Lydda was religiously Jewish before 
being ceded politically to Judaea. Ramathem, the Arimathaea of the New 
Testament (see App. II) is to be identified with Ramallah, and the district 


*Sanballat is called ‘‘the Horonite,’’ which unquestionably means ‘‘the native of 
Beth-horon,’’ just as ‘Ort is today the gentilic from Beit-‘ar. A very prominent 
Muslim family of Jerusalem is called ‘Ori, just as another even more prominent family 
is named Dejdani, from Beit-dejadn, the Assyrian Bit-Daganna (Beth-dagon) near Jaffa. 

*The name Sanballat, pronounced Sin-uballat (not Sin-uballit), as we know from the 
Elephantine transliteration DOINID, is Assyrian, and not Babylonian (Cuthean) as 
generally supposed. All oceurrences of the divine name Sin in Babylonian names found 
in the Aramaean inscriptions are written fe all occurrences of the element in Assyrian 


personal names appear as [D . The reason for this is that the name was originally 


Sin (derived from Sani, Arab. sand, ‘‘be bright, shine’’) a form which was preserved 
in Babylonian, but altered in Assyrian, where the sounds of the sibilants § and s were 
transposed. The family of Sanballat was therefore of Assyrian or Assyro-Aramaean 
origin. Now we ean trace the family through at least three generations, in which the 
name appears twice, just as we can trace the family of the Ammonite Tobiads through 
a period of at least 250 years. Just as the powerful Jewish families of Elephantine 
date back to the establishment of an Egyptian military garrison on the Ethiopian 
frontier, so the appearance of the powerful Sanballat family in Beth-horon indicates 
that the parent of the house belonged to an Assyrian garrison installed there in the 
seventh century, or even somewhat earlier. 


APPENDIX III.—OPHRAH AND EPHRAIM 129 


probably included the Beth-horons and Gophna. If the usual identification 
of Ramathem with Rentis were correct, we should have to assume that 
Demetrius included territory which was religiously Samaritan in his gift— 
a generosity with which one would hesitate to credit the Syrian kings, whose 
policy was certainly not to strengthen the Jews by weakening the Samari- 
tans. Aphaerema is identified by all with Ephraim, i. e., et-Taiyibeh, 
according to-the ordinary view (for Guthe’s view see below). The diffi- 
culty of the form can be easily removed; in late Greek Adgatpeua was pro- 
nounced Adepeua, both ac and e having the same sound, so we may suppose 
that the scribe inadvertently wrote Adaipeua in place of Adepaima, following 
his ear and transposing the two similar vowels in memory. There is no 
difficulty in the way of identifying this Apheraema (to use the corrected 
form) with Samieh, as will presently appear; it is not far enough north 
to be outside of the Jewish zone of influence in this section. 

We now come to the important passages in the Onomasticon, which settle 
the matter, if properly considered. Two towns are distinguished by 
Eusebius : 

1. Aidp<a>, a village five miles east of Bethel (Jerome, vicus 
Ephraim) identified with Ophrah of Benjamin (Onom. ed. KuostTEr- 
MANN, p. 28, 4-5). The editors supply Ardp<ap> following Jerome. 

2. Edpov, kopn peyliarn, twenty miles north of Jerusalem, identified 
erroneously with the Ephron of Jos. 15, (Onom. p. 86, 1-2). The same 
town is identified with the Ephraim of John 11,, in another place 
(Onom. p. 90, 18f.), where it appears as Ephraim (Ed¢paim). Jerome 
offers Efraea instead of Ephraim in the first passage, and since the 
Mosaie of Madeba also has E¢dpaa as the equivalent of Ephron (évOev 
nAGev 6 Kvpios) We may consider it also as the correct reading in the 
original text of Eusebius. 


Sinee Aephra, identified with the biblical Aphra (Ophrah) is placed five 
Roman miles east of Bethel, it must be either Rammiun, three and a half 
English miles due east, or et-Taiyibeh, four and a half miles northeast, 
measuring in a straight line. Rammiuin, however, is preoccupied by the 
Peuyov of Eusebius and Madeba, so et-Taiyibeh is the only alternative, which 
has therefore been adopted by all scholars. Most scholars go on to combine 
the second place mentioned in the Onomasticon with Aephra = et-Taiyibeh. 
Against this is not only the whole tenor of the references in the Onomasticon, 
where the second and third are connected by a cross-reference, while the 
first is kept strictly to itself, but also the distance given. Ephraea is placed 
twenty miles north of Jerusalem. Now Bethel is placed correctly twelve 
(Roman) miles north, and Remmon is fixed at fifteen, a very liberal figure, 
to be explained either by the greater difficulty of the eastern road, or by 


130 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


the addition of the distance from Bethel to Remmon to the figure given - 
for the distance from Jerusalem to Bethel. Since et-Taiyibeh is only a mile 
and a half in a straight line north of Rammitn, it is obviously impossible 
to identify it with Ephraea. From Rammitn to Kefr Malik is three and a 
half English miles, and four and a half to ‘Ain Samieh, so it is hard to 
avoid the conviction that Ephraea was located in this fertile valley, where 
antiquities of all ages abound. 

Now GutHe (MNDPYV 1911, 49-56) has argued at great length for the 
identification of the second Ephraim of Eusebius with the Aphaerema of 
Josephus—GUuTHE is cautious about biblical identifications here—and its 
location at Hirbet Ghurabeh, a mile and a half northwest of Sinjil. _ So 
far as distances go this is possible. The Onomasticon places Gophna fifteen 
miles from Jerusalem, and Hirbet Ghurabeh is just six Roman miles farther 
in a straight line. It is difficult to see why GuTHE picked out Hirbet 
Ghurabeh, since there are equally promising ruins a little farther south at 
exactly the distance given by Eusebius, and there is not a scrap of evidence, 
biblical or otherwise, for this site. Furthermore, we are able to identify 
Hirbet Ghurabeh with the J30Y of the Pesiqta, as pointed out against: 
GuTHE by Kurtin (MNDPV 1912, 19-20); GurTHn’s reply to KLEIN 
(MNDPYV 1912, 86-8) is unfortunate and unconvincing. As GUTHE remarks 
(p. 54), THOMSEN’s identification of Ephraim with Khan Abt’l-Hajj Faris 
is quite impossible, since Faris is a common Arabic personal name, and the 
ruins are insignificant and Arabic. 

Let us now turn to consider the sites with which we have identified Ophrah 
and Ephraim. Et-Taiyibeh is now one of the largest Christian villages in 
Palestine; just before the war it had become wealthy, but. it suffered a great 
deal during this period, losing virtually all the flocks which constituted its 
chief resource. Its antiquity is vouched for by the numerous rock-hewn 
tombs of Jewish and Byzantine date in the neighborhood. A ruined Byzan- 
tine church calls attention to the fact that et-Taiyibeh enjoyed a special 
sanctity during that age. In all probability et-Taivibeh claimed and 
secured during the late Byzantine period and the following Middle Ages 
the honor of being considered the veritable site of Ephraim, where Christ 
stayed. The name et-Taiyibeh is modern; R. HartMANn has proved 
(ZDMG LXV, 536-8) that it is an abbreviation of Taiyibat el-Ism, a desig- 
nation corresponding to eorvuyos, ‘Shaving a name of good omen.’’ The 
name, as in other similar cases, has been substituted for a name of bad 
import. HARTMANN calls attention to the fact that in 1885 Lyp1a Ernsuer 
was told by people of et-Taiyibeh that the place was formerly called ‘Afra 
(ZDPV XVII, 65). Since she was also told that the home of Gideon was 
here (really Ophrah in Manasseh, Tell el-Far‘ah), we may suspect that the 
ancient name had been recently reintroduced by mission teachers. On the 


APPENDIX III].—OPHRAH AND EPHRAIM sD Reo | 


other hand, the form ‘Afra looks genuine, and the existence of a fortress 
of this name near Jerusalem is documented by Yaqtt, who mentions ‘ Afra, 
‘‘a fortress of Palestine near Jerusalem’’ (III, 688, proses craad = 


uploads Jlyst SL: ree )- Moreover, the name ef-Taiyibeh has else- 


where supplanted a similar name. HouscHEer, ZDPV XXIX, 142, has 
shown that et-Taiyibeh of the ‘Ajlan, which was formerly, according to 
its sheikh, called ‘Efreh, is the Ephron of I Mace. 5,,. Ht-Taiyibeh in 
these cases is a euphemistic substitute for the old name, which in Arabic 
is associated too closely with the ideas of ‘‘demon,’’ and ‘‘calamity, wicked- 
ness,’’ ete. ( eagpas, Rpas ).2 In short, the identification of Ophrah- 


Ephron with et-Taiyibeh may be regarded as certain. 

While the foregoing combination is accepted by all, the identification of 
Ephraim with Samieh is an innovation, which demands a full treatment. 
The ruins and ancient remains at Samieh are unique in being wholly with- 
out an identification at present, despite their importance. It is true that 
GumRIN, Samarie, I, 211-3, tried to identify the ruins of Samieh with Neara- 
Noaran, but the statements of the Onomasticon and Josephus cannot be 
harmonized with this view, as shown by Gurur, ZDPV XXXVIII, 47. 
GusérRIN completely failed to take the Talmudic material into consideration ; 
according to the Talmud Noaran and Jericho were practically twin cities, 
one Jewish and the other Christian. Since VINCENT’s discovery of Neara 
at ‘Ain Dfiq, the theory of Guférrm has no more claim for consideration, 
- and Samieh is wholly unpreoccupied. 

Since the archaeological remains of Samieh will receive a special treat- 
ment later, it is not necessary to go mto great detail here. Strange to say, 
secant attention has been paid to these important remains, largely because 
of their inaccessibility. Even DauMAN does not appear to have visited the 
place; when he tried he was met by armed peasants, who turned him back 

(PJB IX, 129). The Survey of Western Palestine does not mention the 
names of the ruins in the valley of Samieh at all. The site first came into 

archaeological prominence with the excavations of the fellahin here in 1907, 
described by Lyon, then Director of the American School. Unfortunately, 
the paper has not been published in full; we are dependent upon an abstract 
which appeared in the Am. Jour. of Afch., XII (1908), 66-7. Remains of 
houses and other buildings from the Byzantine and Arabic periods are 


>The name Ophrah, for *‘Ufrat, is perhaps identical originally with Arab. ‘ufrah, 
‘‘erest’’?; the antiquity of the stem is established by Assyr. epéru, ‘‘to cover the head.’’ 
Such a name would be most suitable for a site like et-Taiyibeh, and a town built on so 
prominent a position would deserve the name ‘‘crest.’? My friend ‘OMAR EFENDI EL- 
BarGHOTHI informs me that according to Arab tradition the name of the town was 
changed from ‘ Afrah to et-Taiyibeh by Salah ed-Din. 


132 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


abundant. Lyon examined the tombs with great care; they are now filled © 
up, so it is to be hoped that he will publish his results. Three kinds of 
tombs were found: Canaanite well-tombs (over a hundred of which were 
counted) ; shaft-tombs; and kékim tombs. The remains of burial offerings, 
found in great quantities, were dispersed in all directions; Harvard has a 
large quantity, and the collections of the American School and Mr. Hrersert 
CLARK have several hundred pieces. The pottery dates from all periods— 
Canaanite, Israelite, Jewish, Roman and Byzantine. Many Canaanite 
bronze weapons were found. The Byzantine period is represented by 
quantities of vases, especially glass vessels. A Greek inscription from 
A. D. 557 (reign of Justinian) was also discovered (see RB 1907, 275 f.). 

The principal ancient ruins are located at Hirbet el-Marjameh (ruin of 
the stone heap), just above ‘Ain Samieh, to the north, covered with pre- 
Israelite remains; Hirbet el-Byadir (ruin of the threshing-floors), which 
represents the site of a later village, occupied down into Arabic times; and 
Hirbet el-Marzban (ruin of the Persian governor). Together with the 
tombs, they show that the valley (one of the best watered and most fertile 
spots in Palestine, famous far and near for its onions) was, as we should 
expect, occupied from the pre-Israelite period down into Arabic times. 
The literary evidence for Ephraim points to the same conclusion. Ephraim 
reached its most flourishing state in pre-Israelite days (see below), and 
continued to be occupied down through the Israelite, Jewish, and Byzantine 
times. Ephraim was, as the name shows, a very fertile spot, near Baal- 
hazor, now Tell ‘Astar; it lay about five miles north of Remmon (Rammin). 
Furthermore, it lay in a valley. Kurtn, MNDPV 1912, 20, has shown that 
the Ephraim (O"5Y; the P is due to the fact that the Palestinian 
Aramaeans, at least in the towns, were careless of their laryngeals, and 
also perhaps to a confusion between Ephraim and Ephron, such as is indi- 
eated by the geré to II Chr. 13,,) of the Misnah, which lay near Michmas, 
and was situated in a valley (AYP), is the same place as the biblical 
Ephraim. His further conclusion that et-Taiyibeh is referred to, because 
it les ‘‘in der Nahe der Jordanniederung,’’ is rather absurd, because 
et-Taiyibeh is one of the highest points in all Mount Ephraim. The passage 
is rather a proof of our localization. 

It may be added that the valley i8 now controlled by Kefr Mahk, though 
much of it belongs, of course, to absentee landlords, who are here, as else- 
where, the curse of Palestine. As the name shows, Kefr Malik is an 
Aramaean settlement; it is mentioned in the time of the Crusades as Caphar 
Melich (Cartulary of the Holy Sepulchre; contrast CLERMONT-GANNEAU, 
PEF 1874, 162). There are no ancient remains at Kefr Malik, so we may 
rest assured that the ancient town was always in the valley below, down to 
mediaeval times. 


APPENDIX III.—OPHRAH AND EPHRAIM tos 


Is there any explanation for the remarkable pre-Israelite necropolis at 
‘Ain Samieh? There are still remains of an ancient megalithic high-place 
on the hill just above the spring, which show that the site was sacred from 
the earliest times. The pot-sherds strewn around are late pre-Israelite, as 
already observed. While they have the typically Canaanite ‘‘porridge’’ 
texture, they are wheel-made. Now, in Appendix V it will be shown that 
Mount Ephraim was occupied by the Hebrews at the close of the Middle 
Canaanite or early in the Late Canaanite period, that is, not far from 
1600 B. C. About this time Bethel and Ai fell into the hands of the 
Hebrews. Shechem probably became partially Hebraized at an even earlier 
date. Mount Ephraim was the focus of the most important group of the 
Bené Ya‘qob, the tribe which called itself the Beth Yéséf and was later 
called Ephraim, after the name of the district. There can be no doubt that 
the district received its name from the town of Ephraim, which was there- 
fore one of the most important Hebrew centers in the late pre-Israelite 
period. The Late Canaanite potsherds and tombs are, accordingly, of 
Hebrew origin, and the necropolis is also Hebrew. 

The fact that there was a Hebrew shrine and necropolis at the town of 

Ephraim enables us to consider the problem of Rachel’s tomb, discussed 
tentatively in Appendix II. Ephrath, where Rachel’s sepulchre was, cannot 
be separated from Ephraim, especially since the gentilic formed from the 
latter, Ephrathi, shows that Ephrath was an archaic variant of Ephraim. 
We are not concerned here with later localizations of the tomb, which have 
already been discussed in connection with Ramah of Samuel. No spot 
could be more fitting for the tomb of Rachel than the old Hebrew town 
after which the name of her grandson and heir was called. Originally the 
tomb was a sanctuary—the sacred temenos of the ewe-goddess, mother of 
Joseph, the eponymous ancestor of Ephraim—, but like many other old 
sanctuaries, it was early transformed into a tomb. Near the sanctuary was 
the necropolis, to which bodies may have been brought from a distance, that 
the shades might enjoy the favor of their deified ancestress. 
- Thanks to the mutual assistance rendered by archaeology and the Bible, 
we are able to pierce the gloom enshrouding the cradle of the Hebrew people, 
gaining a glimpse here and there of its childhood. It was a childhood which 
already gave promise of a vigorous youth, a promise abundantly fulfilled 
in the days of Samuel and Saul, to whose. memories we dedicate the 
excavations at Gibeah. 


APPENDIX IV—THE ASSYRIAN MARCH ON JERUSALEM, 
ISA. X, 28-32. 


One of the most vivid descriptions of the advance of a hostile army ever 
given we owe to the prophet Isaiah. Terse and succinct to a degree, the 
little poem would be bald if it were not for the masterly skill with which 
it has been handled. Even to the modern reader, ignorant of the location 
of the towns and villages named, there is a thrill of sympathetic apprehen- 
sion, as he realizes that the irresistible Assyrian host is about to pounce 
like a vulture on the devoted city. There is an alternation between sonorous 
names and snatches of picturesque description which reproduces the 
rhythmic tread of a mighty army, shaking the road as it marches on, confi- 
dent of its power to crush. What must have been the sensations of Isaiah’s 
audience, already filled with rumors of an impending Assyrian invasion, 
when they heard his solemn voice chanting their approaching doom! Every 
name was familiar to them; they could almost see the Assyrians crossing 
the pass of Michmas, and camping for the night at Geba. With a shudder 
they heard in mind the piercing shriek of the maiden of Gallim, who had 
lingered too long to feed a tame gazelle, and had fallen into the hands of a 
brutal soldiery. And finally they saw the sun flashing on serried battalions, 
as early the next afternoon the van of the foreign host halted on Scopus, 
greeting the first glimpse of Jerusalem with a menacing gesture. 

Commentators and topographers have long tried to identify all the places 
mentioned, but the task has not been easy. Between Anathoth and Nob is 
but a step, yet two villages are mentioned, besides those in the immediate 
vicinity of Anathoth. Migron, which according to I Sam. 14, lay by Geba, 
is here placed between Aiath and Michmash. Clearly there are signs that 
the passage is not in its original order. ; 

Since our passage is obviously extracted from a poem, we must endeavor, 
first of all, to reconstruct its original metrical form, after which we can 
study the topographical bearings of our result. After the amount of work 
which has been expended in the last two decades on the study of Hebrew 
meters, only an extreme sceptic can doubt that Hebrew poetry was cast in 
regular metrical form. One of the greatest errors has been that students 
have tried to force their material into a veritable bed of Procrustes, assum- 
ing that a given poem is either 2+ 2, 3+2, or 3+ 3, not allowing for 
the possibility of more complicated metrical schemes, or alternation of 
measures. In a paper recently published in the Journal of the Palestine 
Oriental Society, Vol. II, pp. 69-86, the writer has pointed out, employing 


APPENDIX IV.—THE ASSYRIAN MARCH ON JERUSALEM 135 


inductive methods, that there are a number of early Hebrew poems, espe- 
cially the Song of Deborah and the Lament of David over Jonathan, in which 
an alternation of lines 3+ 3 and 2 + 2, according to a regular scheme, is 
found. Moreover, this form of verse is found to be characteristic of some 
of the finest ancient Oriental poems which have come down to us. In study- 
ing the poem under discussion at present, it became immediately clear that 
there was a regular alternation of phrases, following the scheme 2 +2 + 3, 
for two verses, changing in the second half of the poem to 3-++2+2. The 
few changes which were necessary to eliminate all inconsistencies proved to 
remove the topographic difficulties as well. 

Where does the poem begin? DuxH™ suggested, and Gray adopted his 
view that the last three words of v. 27 do not belong with the preceding, 
but with the following, thus giving us the beginning of our little poem, 
which is almost certainly a mere fragment. DuHm would change & to %, 
reading 7()197 93519 ()5} instead of fw 9351 SY, which is, of course 
perfect nonsense; the A. V. renders 27b, And the yoke shall be destroyed 
because of the anointing. At first sight, the suggestion of DuHM seems 
very happy; there is indeed a Rimmon (Rammitn) northeast of Ai. But, 
as DAaLMAN has very justly observed (PJB 1909, 13; 1916, 44), the road 
from Rammitn south is very bad; it is, in fact, unthinkable that the 
Assyrian army, with its heavy baggage, should have taken the difficult and 
useless route east of Tell ‘Astir, when there was a much better one on the 
western side. Since the inclusion of the words in our poem plays havoe 
with the meter, I would omit them, and connect them with the preceding 
fragment, vss. 24-27, in accordance with the exegetic tradition. Such a 
reading as *N9w 93 OOPS Sam), And he shall be destroyed forever in 
my wrath, fits in perfectly with the preceding (cf. 25), and requires only 
the most insignificant alterations. There is not a rarer corruption in the 
whole gamut of possibilities than that of res to Sin. 

Turning now to the poem, let us first consider the necessary transposi- 
tions, if any. We are guided by three factors: (1) the external evidence 
for the location of places; (2) the logical association of ideas; (3) the 
requirements of meter and assonance, a very important consideration in 
this poem. The other changes are all very insignificant, and will be 
explained in the foot-notes. The first transposition that presents itself to 
our attention is that of 28b and 29a—how could the Assyrians deposit their 
baggage before they had reached their encampment? The idea expressed 
by the commentators, that the baggage was placed on deposit on the other 
side of the pass, because of its difficulty, is absurd; the Assyrian army 
had crossed worse passes on its southward march, and it would have been 
sheer folly to have abandoned the baggage just when it became of most 
importance. Nor should we forget that Isaiah is describing a future 


136 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


advance, which he paints in the most alarming way possible. To have 
suggested that the Assyrians would be daunted by the arduous pass of 
Michmas would have been an anti-climax, seriously detracting from the 
effect of the recital. We must, therefore, place this passage after 29a. 
But a serious difficulty is left in 28a, while a similar one appears now in 
28b: Migron, which according to I Sam. 14,, in a perfectly clear passage, 
lay south of the pass, near Geba, here is placed north of the pass; on the 
other hand, Michmas is placed south of Geba by our alteration of the order. 
The obvious solution of the double difficulty is simply to transpose Migron. 
and Michmas, whereupon everything falls into logical and natural order. 
The next difficulty is in 31, where we have two hemistichs, one of two beats 
and the other of three, which simply cannot belong together, and hence are 
out of place. Moreover, it is impossible to find room for two towns or 
villages between Anathoth and Nob, a distance of only a little over a mile, 
especially since the only conceivable site, el-‘Isawiyeh, is preoccupied by 
Laishah. Now, 3la, M397 ATIN, shows by its assonance that it belongs 
with 29b, where the d-ending appears three times, and since it fits in as 
perfectly before 29b on metrical grounds as in assonance, we need not hesi- 
tate to insert it here. This leaves 31b, for which the meter has a niche 
ready, after 28a, into which it fits admirably. As a result of the foregoing 
considerations, in every case objective, I have no hesitation in presenting 
the following reconstruction and translation, as well as in deducing further 
topographical data from the revised material. Transpositions of the type 
illustrated are nearly always found in fragments of this sort, where a com- 
plicated succession of phrases containing many proper names has been 
subjected to the caprice of oral transmission for decades or even generations 
before being included in the literary corpus. 


WDIDe Hels: IVY-IN ND 28a I 
WPA oI ow 3rb 

NI-NN7D YI TMmaAYo Sy F294 I] 
v9D WH W793 28b 


*M has my he the first yp may have arisen by dittography. 

"M has yy. 

*For the transposition of 493 and yerysys see the discussion above. The 
transposition took place after the two words were collocated. Note that 3) is not 
regularly construed with 5, while TST is; conversely hay is construed with = while 


p57 is not. Perhaps we may read WAS ‘Y for yrrys ry, which would explain 
the origin of the Sy before ny in M more easily. 

*M offers 5 1919; the } is evidently dittography, since the original text, without 
matres lectionis, naturally read oe 35). Gray’s suggestion, 130) 579, may be correct. 


APPENDIX IV.—THE ASSYRIAN MARCH ON JERUSALEM Var 


MIW TTI (296) Rasen else 3la III 
MDI TINY YI _ 29b 
DIN PAP 7 30a IV 
may Wy Te (WT = —-30b 
epi a haf ey ean 32a vy 
(eres a yw 653? 32b 
The foregoing poem may be translated into English as follows: 
I He has come to Ai, has passed to Michmas, 
The dwellers of Gebim have sought refuge. 
Il He has crossed the pass, made Geba his camp, 
In Migron has placed his baggage. j 
III Madmenah has fled, Ramah trembles, 
Gibeah of Saul is driven out. 
IV Raise high thy voice, maid of Gallim! 
Listen, Laishah, answer her, Anathoth! 
V Yet today he will stand at Nob, 
Shaking his hand (in threat) against maid Zion’s hill. 


The town of Ai mentioned here is indeed the heir of the old Canaanite 
Ai, but is not identical with it, as I have shown in Appendix V, ‘‘ Ai and 
Beth-aven.’’ It is almost certainly to be found in Hirbet Haiyan (ibid.), 
a few minutes south of Deir Diwan, and two miles north-northwest of 
Michmas in a straight line. The Assyrians came from Bethel over Deir 
Diwan, then represented by Ai, toward the pass below Michmas. Michmas 
(Mikmas or better MikmaSs) is admitted by all to be the modern Muhmas. 
The identification of Gebim® is very doubtful. Since Burqah is Beth-aven 
(see App. V) and Kefr Nata, besides being too far north, seems to have an 
ancient name, though post-exilic (Aramaean), I would suggest as a mere — 


-* Read, following the Syriac, mip for M, sT)p. 
°So probably for M, Wy, though the latter may be a syntactical idiom of a little 
-known type. 
*So with geré for ketiv, P3. 
*The meter proves that the addition pow nysis is simply an explanatory 


gloss to TY 3 7M 

® DALMAN, PJB 1916, 54, proposes the identification of Gebim with Sa‘fat. Assuming 
that the order of the Hebrew text is right, this would be theoretically possible. Practi- 
cally, however, the objections are very serious. Sa‘fdt is almost certainly a corruption 
of the Hebrew (not Aramaic) name Safdt, whose bearer may have had property there. 
Pre-Byzantine remains are not found here, and the cisterns to which DALMAN ascribes 
its name all belong to Gibeah, which rises just above it. 


138 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


possibility Hirbet ed-Duweir (little monastery), a rather extensive ruin. 
more than a mile southeast of Muhmas. 

The next couplet brings us over the Wadi es-Sweinit to Geba, identified 
by all with Jeba*. While the Assyrian host slept in the village, the baggage 
train was left outside, at a place called Migron, no longer to be identified. 
It is mentioned (cf. above) in I Sam. 14,, where we should naturally read 


93 TWN POI NAN (M AYIA) YIIAYP3 3Awy Nw And Saul 
was dwelling at the edge of Geba, under the pomegranate of Migron.?” 
The reading of M is due to dittography, assisted by the confusion between 
Gibeah and Geba which is noticeable all through these chapters of Samuel. 
It should be observed that the identification of Migron with a ‘‘ Hirbet 
Magqrtin’’ had better be forgotten by commentators; Dauman, PJB VII, 
13; XII, 47, has punctured the fable of Hirbet Maqrtn, which like some 
other modern names never existed save in the untrained ear of some traveler. 

We now pass on to Madmenah, a town with the unsavory name of *‘dung- 
heap,’’ like Ar. mezbeleh. There was another town of the same name, 
pointed Madmannah, in southwestern Judah (Jos. 15,,). An identification 
is a risky matter, one may suggest as possibilities Hirbet Erha, a Graeco- 
Roman ruin on a flat stone hill-top, or better Hirbet Deir Sellam, to the 
southeast.1+ About a mile northwest is er-Ram, which all unite in com- 
bining with Ramah. As maintained by the great majority, and established 
anew in our discussion above, Tell el-Ffil is Gibeah of Saul. 

The fourth couplet introduces us to three villages which were evidently 
near neighbors, to judge from the description, which presupposes that the 
voice of a crier can be heard in the adjacent villages, or at least on heights 
above them. Anathoth is unquestionably ‘Anata, and the consensus of 
opinion places Laishah at el-‘Isawiyeh, now altered in name very slightly 
by a popular etymology associating the name with T sd, the Muslim name 
of Jesus.1* For the ending we may compare the Arabic name of Bethany, 
el-‘ Azariyeh, from El‘azar (Lazarus). Gallim must lie either west or north 
of ‘Anata. Hizmeh is too far north, and is, besides, preoccupied by 
Azmaveth (see Appendix VII). Hirbet ‘Almit is Alemeth. It therefore 
seems that the only possible identification is with Hirbet Ka‘kal (named 
after a kind of soft white limestone which is found there), about half a 
mile due west of ‘Anata, where there are ancient ruins of sufficient extent 


* It is true that the name Migrén is connected with géren, ‘‘threshing-floor,’’ but it 
is clearly a proper name in the passages where it occurs, so the rendering as a common 
noun becomes very awkward and difficult. DAtMAN, PJB 1916, 48, suggests that Migron 
may be Kefr Nata, but ef. above. 

“ DALMAN, PJB 1916, 54, suggests Hirbet es-Sdma‘ as the site of Madmenah, but 
there are no remains there indicating the existence of a village in Israelite times. 

“ Cf. DaLMan, PJB 1916, 53 f. 


APPENDIX IV.—THE ASSYRIAN MARCH ON JERUSALEM 139 


to show that a respectable village was once situated here. Many remains 
of old walls and rock-cuttings are still visible, and potsherds are strewn 
thickly about. The pottery is nearly all Israelite (Early Iron) and Early 
Arab, Hellenistic (Seleucido-Roman) not being represented. Since there 
was thus a village of Israelite times situated here, the identification is 
archaeologically tenable. If we compare the other indications in the Bible 
for the site of Gallim, we find full accord, a fact which convinced DaLMAN 
of the correctness of the identification with Hirbet Ka‘kal (PJB 1916, 52 f.). 
I Sam. 25,, informs us that Saul gave Michal, David’s wife, to Phalti the 
son of Laish, a notable of Gallim. Gallim was thus evidently near Gibeah ; 
Hirbet Ka‘kdl is only a mile and a half southeast of Tell el-Fal. The other 
- passage is II Sam. 3,, which shows that the most direct road available from 
Gallim to Hebron passed over Bahurim. Fortunately there can be no 
longer any doubt that Bahurim lay just east of Jerusalem, on the hill of 
Ras et-Tmim, easily visible from the top of the Mount of Olives (II Sam. 
17, <r.) and overlooking the old road to Jericho from the north. Ras 
et-Tmim is well supplied with Israelite pottery (Early Iron Age) and has 
several large cisterns. The subject of Bahurim will be treated by Voter in 
this Annual, so we may refer to his article for further details of the identi- 
fication. Since the road from Gibeah southward ran just west of the 
modern Jerusalem, at some distance from the Jebusite town, the village of 
Bahurim must have lain far enough east of Gibeah to make the road east 
of Jerusalem necessary. Under normal circumstances, the road from Gallim 
to Hebron would doubtless have followed the Kedron Valley, but since 
David was at war with the Jebusites this route was evidently not considered 
safe, so Abner prudently took the road on the eastern side of the Mount of 
Olives, past Bahurim. 

The site of Nob is certainly to be are on Ras el-Mesarif. DaLMAN’s 
localization toward the western part of the ridge, at the point where the 
Nablus road crosses it (PJB XII, 55) is proved, however, impossible by 
the total absence of early potsherds anywhere in the vicinity, as the writer 
has established conclusively by repeated examinations of the environs, both 
alone and with the members of the School. The only possible site for Nob 
seems to be the summit at the eastern end of the ridge, where the Augusta 
Viktoria Stiftung, now the Palestine Government House, stands. Here 
there were found numerous cisterns, remains of building, and potsherds, 
early and late. The question of the site of Nob is treated by Voter in 
JPOS III. 

With these fixed points it becomes possible to determine the route followed 
by the Assyrian army with a close approach to precision. The first scholar 
to point out that there is a very ancient track from Geba to Jerusalem, 
passing between Anathoth and Tell el-Ffil, was FfpertNn (RB 1906, 266-73), 


140 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


whose identifications were nearly all wrong, unfortunately. F&pERLIN’s. 
suggestion as to the road was taken up by DauMAN, who gives a very clear 
description in PJB 1916, 41-57 (superseding ZDPV XXIII, 172 and earlier 
allusions in PJB), also found developed still further in LrnprER, SG 96-9. 
On leaving Jeba‘ (Geba) this road led southwestward, to the west of 
Hizmeh, crossing Wadi el-Hafi and Wadi Zimri at easy points. Hirbet 
Ka‘kal is left just to the east, while Tell el-Fil is passed at a greater 
distance. Today this road comes out on the Nablus road just northwest of 
Ras es-Salah, the next hill north of Ras el-Mesarif, but in ancient times the 
main road led southward somewhat to the east, between Ras es-Salah and Ras 
Abt Halaweh, in order to descend into the Kedron Valley, the shortest route ~ 
to Jerusalem. The Assyrians, however, naturally did not go down into the - 
Kedron Valley, where they would be at the mercy of opponents on the 
adjoining hills, but turned eastward a little to Nob and the Mount of Olives, 
from which they had a fine view of Zion (‘‘Ophel’’). From the Govern- 
ment House the view of the southern hill of Jerusalem is far better than 
from DauMAn’s site of Nob, in itself no small argument for this identifica- 
tion, which, however, rests upon archeological data, and is thus hardly 
debatable. 


APPENDIX V—AI AND BETH-AVEN 


The vivid biblical account of the fall of Ai has invested that ancient 
Canaanite city with a peculiar aroma of unhallowed mystery. One recalls 
from youthful perusal of the thrilling story of Joshua’s conquest with what 
a sense of delicious horror one thought of Canaanite corruption and the 
fearful, though merited judgment which overtook the inhabitants, unequal 
to the brilliant strategy of the Israelite chieftain. Nor does modern science 
tend to remove that mystery; the writer will never forget the surprise he 
felt at finding the top of the mound strewn with exclusively Middle Bronze 
Age sherds. 

When Rosinson rode through Deir Diwan in his search for Ai, he was 
divided in mind between et-Tell, half-an-hour northwest of Deir Diwan, 
and a ruin just south of the latter, left unnamed, but described so exactly 
as to establish its identity with Hirbet Haiyan (Bib. Res. I, 443). Ina 
second trip he found himself unable to see any signs of former occupation 
on et-Tell (those were pioneer days) and concluded that the ruins just 
south of Deir Diwan, still left unnamed, represented the old site (zbid. I, 
574 f.). It is a pity that Ropinson did not have time to get the name, for 
in the hands of GuéRIN the problem of nomenclature was later badly con- 
fused. Shortly after Ropinson, VAN DE VELDE traversed the same road, 
and came to the conclusion, following Mr. Finn, as he candidly admits, that 
Ai is represented by the mound of et-Tell or Tell el-Hajar, the latter being 
a name concocted ad hoc by the natives, who received their suggestion from 
the masses of stone which cover the tell (Syria and Palestine, Vol. II, 
278-82). 

GUERIN says in his discussion of the site of Ai (Judée, Vol. III, p. 57-62) 
that Roprnson identified Ai with Hirbet el-Qudeirah (which he erroneously 
spells with a kaf instead of a qgaf), after which he describes the site at 
length and endorses Robinson’s combination. GufRIN’s description applies 
only to Hirbet Haiyaén; Hirbet Qudeirah lies on the opposite side of a wide 
valley which winds around the southern base of the hill on which Haiyén is 
situated. The Survey gives the position of Hirbet Qudeirah accurately, 
but the description of GufrIn has misled many. For example, on a recent 
visit to Hirbet Haiyan, an old fellah of Deir Diwan told me that the fathers 
of the Salehiyeh (White Fathers of St. Anne) insisted on placing Hirbet 
Qudeirah (which he naturally pronounced H. Iqdeirah) there, but that the 
fellahin gave this name to a ruin on the southern side of the valley, in 
agreement with the Survey. This is one of many illustrations I have met 
of the peculiar obstinacy of certain foreign scholars, who suspect the 


142 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


fellahin of misleading them, without making the necessary effort to check 
the statements of the latter. A real peasant of Palestine will seldom or 
never lie regarding place-names;: since, however, he may not know, one 
should never be content without similar answers from more than one— 
avoiding leading questions, which will undoubtedly often elicit false 
answers. Guides and dragomans, on the other hand, make it a point of 
honor to answer all questions—generally without any accurate knowledge. 

The attractive identification of et-Tell with Ai was next taken up, 
independently (of Mr. Fryn) by Sir CHarLes Wiuson (then Captain), who 
cites a certain Rev. G. WimuraMs as sharing this view (PEF 1869, 123). 
The suggestion was endorsed by ConpER (PEF 1874, 62-4), and quite gen- ~ 
erally accepted, though several scholars, among them CLERMONT-GANNEAU, 
preferred to follow RoBinson and identify Ai with some ruin south of Deir- 
Diwan. Unfortunately, this view prevailed after the discovery of the name 
Hirbet Haiyan by the Survey, and ConpDER also adopted it (Hasrine’s 
Dictionary, s. v. Ai), withdrawing his former endorsement of et-Tell. 
Other views, such as KircHENER’s identification of Ai with Hirbet el-Haiyeh 
(ruin of the serpent), on the southern side of the Wadi es-Sweinit (defended 
by Bircu, PEF 1878, 132), and an attempt to place it at Rammfin (PEF 
1878, 195) failed to win adherents, and were abandoned. 

The German scholars, like the English, were divided between et-Tell and 
Hirbet Haiyan. Bunt, impressed by the name, adopted the latter identi- 
fication (Geographie, p. 177), but had the imprudence to eall et-Tell ‘‘eine 
unbedeutende Ruine,’’ which aroused just protest. When Sein, for 
example, first saw et-Tell he was profoundly impressed with its importance 
and regarded the identification with Ai as certain.. Hirbet Haiyan he also 
visited, identifying it with Beth-aven, but got only the name ‘‘chirbet 
ed-dschir,’’ i. e., properly, Hirbet ej-Jhir, a name which, together with 
H. Juhran (plural of jhir) is appled to the remarkable reservoirs imme- 
diately west of Hirbet Haiyan, and simply means ‘‘ Ruin of the Rock Exca- 
vation.’’ SELLIN’s description (MNDPV 1900, 1-4) showed, however, that 
a new era of archeological observation was opening, when piles of unhewn 
stones and potsherds had meanings hidden from the pioneers. Among the 
many who accepted SELLIN’s attitude with reference to Ai was DALMAN 
(PJB VII, 18; VIII, 13), though he thought that a younger Ai, a town 
replacing it after its fall, might have been situated at Hirbet Haiyan (PJB 
VIII, 14). Such a succession of occupied sites, each in the immediate 
neighborhood of the others, is very common, and a name very often follows 
a site in its shifting. PJB XII, 45 f., Dauman developed his view still 
farther, but made the mistake of locating the late pre-exilic town of Ai at * 
et-Tell instead of at Hirbet Haiyan. 

We may then turn to consider the biblical evidence for the site of Ai, 


APPENDIX V.—AI AND BETH-AVEN 143 


first for the Canaanite Ai, and then for the Israelite town. Jos. 7, places 
Ai beside Beth-aven, east of Bethel (39 Op PX V3 DY Ws YT 
SN). Jos. 8, tells us of an ambush set by Israel between Bethel and Ai 
on the west side of Ai. In 8,, Bethel and Ai are mentioned together as in 
alliance against Israel. Jos. 10, speaks of Gibeon as a larger city than Ai, 
a statement which is valuable for the comparative size of Ai. Jos. 12, 
places Ai beside Bethel (ON FD AWD WRN). 

If we examine the references to Ai in Genesis, we find the same picture. 
Gen. 12, says that Abram pitched his tent east of Bethel, having Bethel 
on the west and Ai on the east, a localization which corresponds probably 
to Burj Beitin, where later tradition seems to have placed the sacred spot. 
The same localization is given again in Gen. 18,. 

All the cries of Ai must be harmonized with the statement Jos. 8,, that 
Joshua destroyed Ai, and made it a mound (fell) for ever (HDDW OVyY ON 
mm OvMm WW), which can only mean that Ai remained a ruin from the 
conquest to the date of composition of Joshua, some centuries later. It is, 
therefore, impossible to identify the Canaanite town with the later Israelite 
village, but the latter may have lain in the immediate vicinity of the 
former, and thus have inherited its name, along with its traditions. 

The Canaanite Ai must then be sought for in a prominent ruin of the 
peculiar type known today to the Arabs, as before them to the Assyrians, 
Aramaeans, and Jews, as a tell. Its location is fixed by the fact that it lay 
east of Bethel, but in close relation to it, so that Bethel and Ai could be 
regarded as twin cities. Beyond all doubt is the fact that et-Tell is the 
only tell in the whole neighborhood, besides being by far the most suitable 
location, sO. far as the topographical indications of the Bible go. In the 
course of recent examinations of the mound, the writer has been very much 
struck by the signs of antiquity in the heaps of unhewn building stone. 
Most striking, however, is the fact that out of large quantities of potsherds 
examined all but one or two percent were Canaanite, of the most unmis- 
takable Canaanite type, to be described below. The few non-Canaanite 
sherds were, moreover, neither Jewish nor Roman, but Arabic, representing 
the débris from summer camps of fellah harvesters, and the like. Appar- 
ently no archeologist has previously examined the site with a trained eye 
for potsherds. This examination will surely remove the last doubts as to 
the identity of et-Tell with the biblical Ai. Some historical and archxolog- 
ical aspects of the problem will be discussed below, at the close of the 
appendix. 

When we come to examine the references in the Old Testament to the 
Tsraelite Ai, we find the same general situation. Isa. 10,, locates Aiath ( ny) 
north or northwest of Michmas. Since this passage gives an exhaustive 
list of all the towns and villages on Sennacherib’s march through Benjamin, 


144 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


Ai cannot be far from Michmas, but must be near Deir Diwan, preferably 
south of the modern town. The same location is deducible from the list 
Neh. 11,,, which is in strict geographical order: Geba, Michmash, Aia ~ 
(NY), and Bethel. Ezra 2,., = Neh. 7,. names Bethel and Ai (PP. with the 
same spelling as the name of the Canaanite town) in close juxtaposition. 
On the other hand, we cannot find Ai with some exegetes in the passage 
I Chr. 7,,, where a few MSS read 7° “SY instead of MP AY. to Gaza. 
Since this ‘Az, ‘Aiyd, or ‘Aiyat lay on the regular line of march toward 
the south from Bethel, while the Canaanite ‘Az, et-Tell, lay slightly too far 
northeast to be on-it, we are led, again, to look for the Israelite town 
farther to the south. Just such a ruin of Jewish date as that desired for 
this Ai is ready for us at Hirbet Haiydn, the name of which is evidently 
partial assimilation for Hirbet ‘Aiydn. The relation between ‘ Aiydt, ‘ Aiyd, 
and ‘ Aiydn is exactly like that between Neara, Noardt, and Noaraén (other 
examples may. be collected with the greatest ease; see below on Alemeth). 
I am happy to be in agreement with the suggestion dropped by Dalman, 
to which I have alluded above. 

Since the question of Ai inevitably brings up that of Beth-aven, whieh 
SELLIN (MNDPV, 1900, 2-3) and Groreze ApAM SmitH (Enc. Bib. s. v.) 
have tried to identify with Hirbet Haiyan (SELLIN erroneously assumed 
that Hirbet ej-Jhir is identical with Hirbet Haiyan, which he failed to 
discover), we shall try to solve the question of this localization as well. 
Beth-aven is mentioned in the following passages. Jos. 7, has been dis- 
cussed above, in connection with the site of Ai. From it we learn that 
Beth-aven was very near Ai. Jos. 18,, says that the northern boundary 
of Benjamin ran from Jericho up to the wilderness of Beth-aven. The 
passage will be fully discussed in Appendix VI; suffice it to say here that 
the boundary ran south of Bethel, so that Beth-aven lay in this direction, 
not north, as might otherwise be supposed. The most important evidence 
comes from the account of the great defeat of the Philistines at the hand 
of Saul and Jonathan, in I Sam. 13-14. From 13, we learn that Michmas, 
where the Philistines pitched their camp, lay east of Beth-aven. The line 
of their retreat passed over Beth-aven (14,, JN M2 ON IY), from Mich- 


* Hirbet Haiyan is a large, finely situated ruined village, with remains of the Jewish, 
Roman-Byzantine and Early Arab date, as shown by the potsherds. The depth of débris 
is very considerable; some abortive excavations by felldhin in search of treasure just to 
the south of Seih Ahmed appear to have been sunk to a respectable depth. The shrine 
of Seih Ahmed consists now only of a grove of fine oaks and some ruined walls, but 
the weit is still held in veneration. To the west of the Wirbeh are four large reservoirs 
of Roman or Byzantine construction, partly hewn out of the rock and partly walled in’ 
with well-cemented masonry. A description of them may be found in GUERIN and the 
Survey, so it is hardly necessary to repeat our measurements. 


APPENDIX V.—AI AND BETH-AVEN 145 


mas to Ajalon (14,,). The Philistine retreat must thus have followed the 
ridge of Muhmas northwestward toward Burqah, south of the latter, and 
on toward Kefr ‘Aqab, Rafat, to one of the roads leading westward south 
of the Wadi Selman. For Beth-aven the only possibility would seem to 
be Burqah. The name, which means in Arabic ‘‘hard ground,’’ is not 
ancient, and so there is no obstacle from this side to the identification. In 
the valley to the south of Burqah there is a spring, which guarantees that 
the settlement here is ancient. From the modern town little can be deter- 
mined, since it is situated on a hill-side, so all ancient débris has been swept 
away by the winter rains, as at Geba, Anathoth, and many similar sites; 
many of the stones look ancient. 

It is hard to see how, with the definite statement, supported by the whole 
course of the narrative, that Beth-aven was west of Michmas, some scholars 
have been able to place it north-northwest, at Deir Diwan or Hirbet Haiyan. 
Yet ScHLATTER, Zur Topographie und Geschichte Palastinas, pp. 240-2, 
has not only identified Beth-aven with Deir Diwan the name of which he 
thought might be a popular etymology of the former (!), but also gone 
farther and located the ancient sanctuary of Bethel there. The cause of 
this confusion, which has induced some scholars to go so far as to identify 
Beth-aven with Bethel, is that an ancient scribe altered ‘‘Bethel’’ to ‘‘ Beth- 
aven’’ in Hos. 4,, and 10,. Not all occurrences of ‘‘Bethel’’ in Hosea were 
so changed, but only the most offensive cases, where ‘‘playing the harlot’’ 
and ‘‘worship of the calf’’ are mentioned in connection with the old holy 
city. The idea of changing ‘‘ House of God’’ to ‘‘House of Iniquity’’ was 
naturally suggested by the actual occurrence of the name ‘‘Beth-aven’’ in 
the immediate vicinity of Bethel. The name ‘‘Beth-aven’’ does actually 
oceur once in Hosea, it should be observed; the commentators are entirely 
mistaken in supposing that we have the same substitution in Hos. 5,, where 
three important towns of Benjamin (so labelled!), Gibeah, Ramah, and 
Beth-aven, are mentioned in succession. As will be shown in Appendix VI, 
Bethel did not belong to Benjamin, but to Ephraim; Beth-aven, on the 
other hand, was a Benjamite town. The Greek text (some editions) con- 
flates ‘‘Bethel’’ and ‘‘Beth-aven’’ in Jos. 7,, where they are mentioned 
together, but sinee the present Hebrew text could not have arisen from an 
original postulated on the basis of this Greek reading, it is probable that 
the latter is simply due to haplography on the part of a Greek copyist. 

The statement in Jos. 7, that Ai was near Beth-aven is presumably to be 
explained in the following way. The actual distance in a straight line 
between et-Tell and Burqah is almost identical with that between et-Tell 
and Beitin, the latter being two or three hundred meters less. In Israelite 
times, however, the site of the inhabited Ai was at Hirbet Haiyan, less 
than a mile and a half from Burqah, which is much closer to it than are 


146 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


either Beitin or Muhmas, the next nearest towns. The nearest town to - 
et-Tell outside of Bethel was certainly Beth-aven, but the fact that the 
seribe felt it necessary to add the further remark that Ai was near Beth- 
aven may be most readily explained by his knowledge of the topographical 
relation between Beth-aven and the Israelite Ai. 

Having established the identity of et-Tell with Ai anew, let us turn our 
attention for a moment to some historical consequences to be deduced from 
the archeological examination of the tell. As observed above, all the 
hundreds of potsherds inspected, with some insignificant Arab exceptions, 
were Canaanite. But, almost to the consternation of the writer, they 
proved to be, not Late Canaanite, but Middle Canaanite (Middle Bronze). 
All the sherds were hand-modelled, hardly a single wheel-made piece appear- 
ing. Most were of the coarse texture characteristic of indigenous Canaanite 
ceramics, called by some ‘‘porridge ware,’’ i. e., with comparatively large 
fragments of limestone or mica mixed with the clay, giving it a curious 
porridgy appearance. Some pieces had the rich burnished slip of the 
Middle Bronze type. One piece of a jug was covered with a red slip, 
which had been pattern burnished in net design; a fragment of a saucer 
was covered inside and out with a yellowish brown slip, also pattern bur- 
nished. Another sherd had a rather deep incised line drawn across it, 
apparently in a horizontal direction. Pottery of the type just indicated 
belongs to the last part of Buiss’s ‘‘ Early Pre-Israelite’’ and WaATZzINGER’S 
‘‘Canaanite.’’? By far the best characterization yet published is due to 
Buss, Excavations in Palestine, 1898-1900, pp. 77-83. During the follow- 

—ing Late Canaanite period, nearly all vases are wheel-made. During this 
period the Mycenaean and Phoenician-Cypriote styles come in, passing out 
with the Israelite conquest of the highlands and the Philistine and Sicilian 
occupation of the Coastal Plain (as established by the excavations of the | 
British School at Ashkelon, Dor, Tell Harbaj, Tell ‘Amr, ete.), or surviving 
in a degenerate form. 

If Ai was destroyed during the invasion of Palestine by Israel, under 
Joshua’s leadership, which we may date to about 1230 B. C. (see above), 
one would have a right to expect Late Bronze pottery on the summit of the 
mound. One would look for pottery of the type immediately preceding 
that found in Gibeah I. But all this stage, with its Phoenician and Cypriote 
sherds, its characteristic metal bowl rims, ete., ete., is entirely lacking. 
Instead it belongs unmistakably to the preceding Middle Bronze period 
(roughly 2000-1600 B. C.), when the principal techniques used were a rich, 
very characteristic burnished slip, incised bands and strokes, or pattern 
burnishing in net designs, when also the potter’s wheel was seldom used 


* For WATZINGER’S mistake in dating the absolute (not relative) age of the strata at 
Jericho ef. the remarks JPOS IT, 133 f. 


APPENDIX V.—AI AND BETH-AVEN 147 


for ordinary pottery, as was nearly always the case in the Late Canaanite 
Age. Apparently, therefore, we are forced to conclude that Ai was 
destroyed centuries before the invasion of Israel under Joshua, between 
the seventeenth and the fifteenth centuries, presumably in the sixteenth. 
Let no one think that this conclusion is forced and premature; the writer 
has, in company with members of the American School, combed the surface 
of the tell on more than one occasion, examining thousands of sherds from 
all parts of the summit. 

The correctness of this result is confirmed by the results of the excava- 
tions of WarzincEer at Jericho. As is known to all Palestinian archeolo- 
~ gists who are au fart, the fifth stratum of Jericho, regarded by WatziNGER 
as post-exilic, is in reality (see above) pre-exilic, Hielite. The fourth is 
not Israelite at all, but Canaanite, and its massive brick walls must represent 
the traditional walls which fell before the Hebrew invasion. The pottery 
is characteristically Middle Bronze; the scarabs are Middle Empire and 
Hyksos. The few fragments of the Cyprio-Phoenician type of pottery 
simply show that Palestine was in the first beginnings of the Late Bronze 
Age at the time of the destruction of Jericho IV. In other words, the fall 
of the Canaanite Jericho took place in the course of the sixteenth century 
B. C., with perhaps a small margin on either side possible, though unlikely.* 

At first sight we may seem to have tackled an insoluble problem, but such 
is not, I venture to say, the case. As has been pointed out above, the 
account of the conquest of Palestine in the Old Testament is highly schema- 
tized, and contains the record of events spread out in reality over centuries. 
We know that there were several Hebrew invasions: one under Abram, 
or related clans, mainly, it would seem, of the Bené Ya‘qob in the seven- 
teenth century; another of the Bené Yosef somewhat later, continuing 
down to the ‘Amarnah Age; a movement in the second half of the thir- 
teenth century, restricted perhaps to Transjordania; and finally the great 
invasions of Israel under Joshua and Judah under Caleb, falling roughly 
about 1230 B. C. To which of these are we to ascribe the destruction of 
Jericho and Ai? 

While Hebrew tradition confused the various phases of occupation, it 
did not carry the conflation nearly so far in the original narrative of J 
(preserved Judges, ch. 1) as in the present redaction of Joshua. The 
purpose of the first chapter of Judges in its present form is clearly to com- 
plete the picture drawn in Joshua by quoting extracts from a Judaic 


*Tn my approximate chronology in JPOS II, 134 I have been misled by an insistence 
on the date 1230 for the fall of the Canaanite Jericho into an extravagant allowance 
for the duration of the fourth city. In reality the fourth city, which has a relatively 
thin deposit, was founded—say—in the eighteenth century and destroyed in the sixteenth. 
This subject will be studied elsewhere at greater length. 


148 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


(Yahwistic) account of the conquest written considerably earlier, at the. 
beginning of the Divided Monarchy. Jud. 1,,., gives us a tradition relating 
the capture of Bethel by the Bené Yosef. Since nothing is said here of the 
twin city, Ai, though we learn from Jos. 8,, that Bethel and Ai were in 
league against Israel, sharing in the defeat, it becomes probable that this 
passage is inserted here as a supplement to the story in Joshua. The failure 
of the Joshua narrative to mention the fall of Bethel is presumably based 
upon some contradictory element in the story of this event, which could 
not readily be fitted into the time of Joshua. In the list Jos. 12, which 
certainly reflects an older and fuller version of the Conquest than that 
siven in our present redaction of Joshua, the ‘‘king’’ of Bethel is aly 
mentioned, a fact which clinches our argument. 

From the ‘Amarnah Tablets we know that most of the territory later in 
the possession of the Beth-Yosef was already in the hands of the Habiru- 
Hebrews about 1400 B. C. The fact that Jericho and Ai are never men- 
tioned in this extensive source, and never appear in any of the Egyptian 
‘lists or papyri of the New Empire is easily explained by this situation, con- 
firmed beyond eavil by the archeological results just set forth. 

The traditions of Genesis indicate clearly that the Hebrews remained on 
friendly terms with the Canaanites during the period of Hyksos domina- 
tion in the time of Abram,* who was in league with the inhabitants of the 
Vale of Siddim, as well as with the ‘‘ Hittites’’ of Hebron and the people 
of Jerusalem. The Bené Ya‘qob in the north and the Bené Yishaq in the 
south are also represented as living on peaceful terms with the Canaanites. 
But the coming of the Bené Yosef into Palestine was attended with conquest, 
as stated explicitly Gen. 48,, (cf. ch. 34) and Jud. 1. Since this invasion 
is not referred to in our present Egyptian sources, it presumably occurred 
during the anarchic period between the break-up of the Hyksos Empire 
and the establishment of the Egyptian, that is between 1600 and 1550 B. C., 
say about three and a half centuries before Joshua. In support of this 
dating is the tradition preserved Jud. 1,, that the survivors of Bethel (the 
story naturally offers ‘‘one man’’) went north into the Land of the Hittites 
(i. e. Northern Syria, from Kadesh north) and built a city called after 
the name of the town just lost by them to the Hebrews. This refers in 
the most unmistakable terms to a movement northward into Syria, a move- 


* For the approximate date of Abram see JPOS I, 64-77. In support of this assign- 
ment I am gathering new material, some of which will be published soon in AJSL. 
The whole Hyksos period is coming more and more into the light of history; the writer 
is preparing a more elaborate treatment of it, on the basis of what positive information, 
mostly archaeological or indirect, is in our possession. It is a pity that the lucubrations ~ 
of ErsuEer, JRAS 1923, 169 ff., are threatening to cast discredit again on a perfectly 
legitimate branch of enquiry. 


APPENDIX V.—AI AND BETH-AVEN 149 





ment which one inevitably associates with the Hyksos retreat into Syria 
(pace WALDEMAR SCHMIDT)—a new consideration in support of our date. 
Most important of all, however, is the archeological material, requiring a 
date in or very near the sixteenth pre-Christian century for the fall of 
Jericho and Ai. The legendary character of the tradition becomes very 
easy to explain, in view of its long history; and the extraordinary contrast 
between the account of the fall of these two cities and the sober continuation 
of Joshua’s campaign in Palestine becomes clear as soon as we realize that 
the latter is centuries later than the former. Since the whole problem of 
the early history of the Hebrews will be studied at length in an early 
publication, it is not necessary to go into further detail here. 


APPENDIX VI—THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF BENJAMIN 


From time to time problems arise anew, after they have been regarded 
by all as satisfactorily solved. Their incorrect solution thus may stand — 
long in the way of a correct answer to other questions, and it is usually 
in connection with the discovery of such a paradox that the initial mistake 
is found. So it is with the problem under discussion. The northern border 
of Benjamin has been consistently placed too far north, in order to include 
all the towns which seem, according to a superficial examination of the 
list of Benjamite towns in Jos. 18,,.,, to have been assigned to that tribe. 
Bethel has thus been given to Benjamin, though all other passages in the 
O. T. place it in Ephraim. The traditional maps, which include all the 
district of et-Taiyibeh within Benjamite territory, also present certain 
extraordinary anomalies, which will be pointed out below. 

A eritical examination of the two accounts of the northern boundary of 
Benjamin, Jos. 16, ,,, and 18,, ;, will enable us to correct the maps at the 
very start, and the results thus obtained will be found to agree fully with 
all the other material except the present text of the list Jos. 18,, ,, which 
will, however, prove to contain serious scribal errors. The same type of 
seribal errors is also found in the accompanying description of the boun- 
daries, but, thanks to the double account, it is possible to restore the 
original arrangement of the text without difficulty. 

The present text of Jos. 18,,.,, reads as follows: AND? Sign ond 7" 


Tm AD aT Ad Pay wy HN IW DDI AI AW" Jo ANS 
M333 ano 4nd ON AN? 2337 OW ADV) PX 13 TITW YORE 
jm ma9 3339 WN WT Oy TWN AMY 99937 39) IN PD NT 

‘  * NAAN With this should be compared the actual text of 
Jos. 16,-., with 16.,, which has obviously fallen out and been inserted in 
the wrong place, reinstated in the proper order: aTe)) 995 Syn NY" 
ney On FD AAD ND ADY AWN AAT 7! aly, JES Tavis 
(way NIN FD AY ATN) AMY 99ND] ON Tay) AN IN 3 

9 CONN I 1D Ss AV ppt 21S18 oN cul eae 
While neither passage offers very good sense as it stands, it is by no means 
hard to correct certain simple scribal errors which cause the difficulty. The 
first part of the two descriptions agrees well. If we emend MMVID to 
many in Jos. 16,, all obscurity disappears, since we have the border 
running from the Jordan to ‘Ain es-Sultan, east of Tell es-Sultan, and 
then circling around the low Jericho ridge, keeping well to the north of 
the town. The next section is correspondingly harder. If, however, we 


APPENDIX VI.—THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF BENJAMIN raya 


note that the first account has [IN 43 instead of 9X 713 the first time, 
and recall that the names of these two towns:-are constantly confused, both 
in M and G (see below) we will naturally correct the second Beth-el in the 
second passage to Beth-aven, or rather restore the reading as D3) NY) 
58 DvD we Ad DX ‘‘And (the border) went out from Beth-aven to 
Luz, that is, Beth-el.’’ Having cleared up this apparent contradiction, we 
may turn back to the beginning of the section, which is extremely corrupt. 
Since four of the five to seven words of this are common to both descriptions, 
though in a different order, we will do well to follow the rational order of 
Jos. 16, and read Jos. 18,,. as follows: 7’ YAS yo 7IDIW mop, 
PN 3 Wd ‘And (the border) went up into the wilderness, and its out- 
goings westward were in the hills of Beth-aven.’’ Since both words and 
order are exactly in accord with one of the two sources, we may consider 
the result as practically certain. There is no further difficulty of moment 
in our sources, if we fill out the lacuna in Jos. 18 with the data given in 
the parallel passage. 

Taking the source in Jos. 18, then, as our basis, and supplementing it, 
whenever possible, with material from Jos. 16 (which may or may not have 
been originally included in the former account), we have the following 
composite text, which unquestionably gives us an accurate description of 


the northern boundary of Benjamin: [NDS 5337 (Pio? 32 9939) on 99" 


WA) AIDA AAV Paya wy HD IW DIT APY PIV JD ANS 
NT) 19 NS ON AND PN O99 937 13 YX 7 973 AD yaNyN 
Mey PAIN md AY IN AMDY DIN DDD ON TN 33D ON AD 
NAAT AN 39 3399 WR WT AY YI 731 ON AO TAIN. In 
literal translation this may be rendered as follows: And the border of the 
Benjamites on the northern side was from the Jordan; and the border went 
up to the north of the ridge of Jericho [var.: east of the waters of Jericho], 
and went up into the wilderness, and its outgoings westward were in the 
hills of Beth-aven; and the border went up from Beth-aven toward Luz, 
to the southern side of the ridge of Luz (which is Bethel); and it went 
down to the border of the Archite, (at) Ataroth Addar, as far as Beth- 
horon the Upper; and it went down westward to the border of the Japh- 
letite, as far as the hill which is south of Beth-horon the Nether. This 
result is not only perfectly consistent in itself, but does not involve a single 
alteration of text which is not based on the data preserved for us by an 
extraordinary good fortune in the two sources. And these do not seem to 
have contaminated one another either, as sometimes happens. Where the 
text of G differs, it is here invariably inferior to M. It may be added that 
I have not thought it worth while to quote the commentators, because I 
have found it impossible to secure any help from them. The older commenta- 


152 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


tors had a very inadequate basis for geographical studies, and hence con- - 
tribute nothing to the solution of a problem demanding very delicate 
topographical method. The recent interpreters mostly exaggerate the 
supposed contradictions of the sources, in order to find additional support 
for more or less fanciful source theories. The writer would not be under- 
stood, of course, as objecting to the critical analysis of Joshua, but rather 
to the uncritical utilization of the invaluable topographical materials pre- 
served in it. Scientific methods of literary anaylsis are worthless unless 
based on sound premises. 

Before passing on it is worth while pointing out that there is a serious 
lacuna in the description of the boundaries on the west and north; with the 
mention of Michmethah in 6 we find ourselves suddenly transported to the 
northeastern corner of the Ephraimite territory. 16,)., continues the 
account of the eastern borders in detail, and without any apparent corrup- 
tion of the text. Some later scribe noticed the gap, and filled it in partly 
by an extract from 17..,, which he inserted after the portion extant in the 
sixteenth chapter, in v. 7—note that this description follows the order from 
east to west found in the account of the boundaries of Manasseh, but wrong 
here. After leaving Gezer the border ran to the sea, and then followed 
the coast up theoretically to the mouth of the brook Kanah, on up to 
Tappuah? and Michmethah? near Shechem. From Michmethah it turned 


1TIn the description of the northern boundary of Ephraim = the southern of Managseh, 


Jos. 16,=17;-. we must naturally correct M, fr) SN Pot 5N es yyabte. 777) 
Mn py to MON Py aw ON AD’ 7337 TIAN, “And the boundary ran 


westward toward the people of En-Tappuah.’’ The border passed from Michmethah 
near Shechem to Tappuah or En-Tappuah, and on to the Valley of Kanah (now Kanah 
or Qana, by a popular etymology connecting it with qdnd, ‘‘water-channel’’), down 
which it ran to the sea. Tappuéh is then southwest of Nablus, and not southeast, as is 
supposed by BuHL (Geographie, p. 178) and others, who completely misunderstand the 
passage, in trying to retain the impossible yamin. The Tephon of I Mae. 9; belongs 
elsewhere. The speculations of GufRIN, Samarie, I, 255-261, placing Tappuah at Hirbet 
‘Ataf and En-Tappuah at Tell el-Far‘ah, northeast of Nablus, are today antiquated. 
Tell el-Far‘ah has now been combined happily with the Ophra of Manasseh; see DALMAN, 
PJB VIII, 30 ff. The location of Tappuah southwest of Samaria fills a serious gap in 
Palestinian topography; the region in question, despite its numerous interesting ruins, 
has been a tabula rasa for the biblical geographer. Now, if Tappuah lay here, so also 
did Tirzah, the first capital of the northern kingdom. II Kings 15,, we read that 
Menahem smote Tappuah (so read with LXX and commentators instead of M MDH) 
from Tirzah, because its inhabitants resisted his march from Tirzah to Samaria (v. 14). 
Tirzah lay then southwest of Samaria, perhaps~in the vicinity of Deir Ghassaneh, and 
has nothing to do with either Tallfzah or TeyAsir, identifications which have been the 
despair of both archaeologists and philologists. 

?Michmethah or Michmethath (MjAyy5%) is to be identified with Hirbet Mabnah 
el-Féqa, lying on a hill just west of the road from Jerusalem to Nablus, about five 


APPENDIX VI.—THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF BENJAMIN 153 


southeast, and ran past Taanath-shiloh (Ta‘neh), Janohah (Yanifn), 
Ataroth (el-Mugheir?), Naarath (‘Ain Dtq), to Jericho. 

A consideration of the material just given shows clearly that the bound- 
aries of Benjamin were located further south than has generally been 
thought. Beginning with the Jordan east of Jericho, the northern border 
skirted ‘Ain es-Sultan and the northern slope of Tell es-Sultan, leaving 
Jericho in Benjamin (Jos. 18,,). From Jericho it ran west into the moun- 
tains between the Wadi es-Sweinit and the Wadi Rummaneh. It could 
not well have been as far south as the Sweinit, because the latter comes out 
through the Wadi el-Qelt south of the ancient Jericho. Nor could it have 
been so far north as the Wadi Rummaneh, since this waédi emerges at ‘Ain 
Diq, just below which lay the ancient Naarath or Noaran, as established by 
Vincent. This is a very important point; Naarath, which belonged to 
Ephraim (I Chr. 7,,), was formerly placed by scholars further north, on 
the ‘Auja.* The fact that it lay several miles to the southwest shows that 
Benjamin did not extend so far north as we had been assuming, and tends 
to throw suspicion on the supposed projection of Benjamin into Mount 
Ephraim between Jericho and Beth-horon. Was there any such projec- 
tion at all? The answer must be in the negative, a conclusion which 
demands proof, since it requires a complete reversal of the current theory. 

The descriptions of the northern boundary of Benjamin which we have 
just analyzed agree fully in tracing the border from Jericho to Beth-aven, 
and on south of Bethel. Beth-aven was then Benjamite, and Bethel was 
Ephramite. Hos. 5, states explicitly that Beth-aven was Benjamite (see 
Appendix V, above), while Bethel is included repeatedly among the towns 
of Ephraim (see especially Jud. 1,,., and I Chr. 7,,). The only exception 
is Jos. 18,,, where, however, we must evidently read ‘‘Beth-aven’’ for 
‘‘Bethel,’’ thus eliminating the only difficulty. There is still, however, it 
would seem, a proof that the Benjamite outposts were, despite the clear 
testimony of the boundary accounts, pushed into the very heart of Mount 
Ephraim. Jos. 18,, names Ophrah among the towns of Benjamin. Now, 


miles southeast of the latter. The only possible difficulty is philological, and there are 
excellent parallels for all the phonetic changes involved. First, we have dissimilation of 
the second m to n (opposite of BarTH’s Assyrian law), as in Meirén for Merém, ete. 
Secondly we have reduction or dissimilation of the feminine ending t, probably in 
Aramaic, followed in Arabic by the further reduction of the ending etd, which the Arabs 
naturally did not distinguish from other occurrences of this ending in Aramaic. 

’ Eusebius, Onomasticon, 136, 24 f., places Noopaé, the Neapa of Josephus, Ant. XVII, 
xiii, 1, and the pW of the Talmud, five Roman miles from Jericho. Before VINCENT’S 


discovery this was interpreted to mean that Neara lay on the Wadi el-‘ Auja (so GUTHE, 
ZDPV XXXVIII, 41-9) near Archelais, or even with GufRIN in the Wadi Samieh 
(Appendix III). ‘Ain Dfiq is 344 Roman miles in a straight line from the Roman 
Jericho, but fully five by road, since the latter must wind around Jebel Qarantal. 


154 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FOL) 


as shown again in Appendix III, there can be little or no doubt that Ophrah. 
is the modern et-Taiyibeh. If Ophrah is really found in our passage, we 
must explain a seemingly irreconcilable divergence in our accounts of the 
northern border. However, there is every reason to believe that it does 
not belong here, but is due to a scribal emendation, substituting a well- 
known name for an unintelligible one. Jos. 18,,,. in M offers a very 
peculiar piling up of similar syllables: 39YM TDD) ANDY) ANDM Oy 
DYN) with initial Y four times and 5 thrice. Still worse is the fact 
that, though the district under treatment, east-central Benjamin, is the 
best known topographically in all the tribe, hardly any of these names occur 
elsewhere. Parah, modern Hirbet Farah, is all right, and so is presumably - 
Ha-‘awwim, ‘‘The Jackals(?),’’ but the rest are impossible. The word 
kefar, ‘‘village,’’ is Aramaic, and never occurs in any other place-name in 
the whole Old Testament, though it becomes exceedingly common during 
the Aramaic period. Nor is kefdr found as a common noun in any pre- 
exilic Hebrew passage. Besides, ‘‘ Village of the Ammonites’’ is an - 
extremely improbable place-name for early Israelite Benjamin. We cannot 
lay any stress upon the fact that some Greek MSS omit the kefdr, since 
omissions of this type are altogether too frequent in different Greek recen- 
sions of the O. T. We should evidently join the 7 of °3JDYN to the pre- 
ceding word, which gives us 7793, Chephirah, thus erroneously repeated ; 
it occurs also in v. 26. The ‘‘Ophrah’’ is presumably due to the fact 
that the scribe began to write a word with initial Y, and inadvertently 
dittographed part of the preceding word. In this way, by omitting the 
755, we obtain three names beginning with Y, but obviously corrupt. 
It can hardly be accidental that there are in the very district in question, 
between Parah and Geba, three important villages whose names also com- 
mence with J’—Anathoth, Almon, and Azmaveth (see Appendix VIT). 
It may therefore be suggested that we read for the ‘JOY 39) ADP 
of M QANIY) Nyvay ANI. or the like. While this emendation is 
naturally very doubtful, it remains certain that:the text of M here has 
been badly corrupted, and that we need not accept its testimony against 
the explicit statement of the other passages. Hereafter Ophrah must be 
assigned where it belongs, to Ephraim, and no one need wonder what has 
become of Rimmon, Ai and Michmas, which lie south of Ophrah, and there- 
fore should be included in the list of Benjamite towns, if Ophrah belongs 
there. 

From Beth-aven (Burqah) the border ran westward, south of Bethel, 
skirting the territory of the Archites, to whom Ataroth Addar, that is, 
Hirbet ‘Attarah south of Tell en-Nasbeh, is assigned. Beeroth itself seems + 
to have had a doubtful allegiance (II Sam. 4,; see Appendix I), but at the 
time when Joshua was compiled was perhaps in ruins. From Ataroth the 


APPENDIX VI.—THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF BENJAMIN 155 


border ran just south of the two Beth-horons. It is vain to look elsewhere 
for identifications of the Archites and Japhletites. ‘‘Archite’’ occurs in 
the Old Testament as a gentilic, which vouches for its. correct transmission 
here, but it certainly cannot be connected with the modern ‘Ain ‘Arik, 
west of Ramallah, as has been suggested. The gentilic Palti is a variant 
of Yafleti, and probably refers to the same district in II Sam 238,,, rather 
than to Beth-pelet in southern Judah. From the context it would appear 
that the Archites occupied the district from Hirbet ‘Attarah westward to 
Beth-horon the Upper, while the Jafletites held the region of the two 
Beth-horons. 

Since the preceding discussion has been rather complicated, it may be 
well to review briefly the salient points brought out. The explicit evidence 
of the description of the boundaries does not allow for a projection of 
Benjamite territory into Ephraim or even for a Benjamite enclave in 
southern Ephraim. While by accepting the present wording of the list of 
Benjamite towns and rejecting the definition of boundaries it is possible 
to map the northern boundary line arbitrarily, as is done in the current 
maps, the results are contradicted repeatedly by allusions in other parts 
of the Bible. On examination of the lst it becomes evident at once that 
it is in a corrupt state, and cannot be accepted just as it is, while plausible 
emendations are easy to find. 

It may further be observed that the admission of the long Benjamite 
salient brings with it the existence of a very peculiar Ephraimite one, 
extending down from north of et-Taiyibeh to just northwest of Jericho. 
Moreover, while the Benjamite salient is not incredible per se, the Ephraim- 
ite is impossible, since it includes little but the barren slope of the hills east 
of et-Taiyibeh, Rammin, and Deir Diwan, since the Ghor was reckoned to 
Manasseh. Today the eastern slope is counted as belonging to the villages 
on the eastern part of the highland, a situation rendered inevitable by the 
geographical -and hydrographic facts of the case. It is therefore incon- 
-eeivable that these towns could have been Benjamite, while the slopes below 
were Ephraimite, and the Ghor belonged to Manasseh. 


APPENDIX VII—ALEMETH AND AZMAVETH. 


In the preceding discussions we have often had occasion to note the con- 
fusion introduced into topographical problems by the striking similarity in 
name between adjacent towns. So we have had to distinguish Gibeah and 
Geba (to say nothing of Gibeon); Ramah and Ramathaim, also called 
Ramah; Ophrah and Ephraim, Bethel and Beth-aven. Many scholars have 
wished to combine certain of these pairs, thus increasing the chaos where 
simplicity is best served by making sharp distinctions. In considering..an 
additional pair, we are not attempting any rash innovations; we are rather 
endeavoring to place their separate identity, already recognized by scholars, 
on a firm basis. | 

The town of Alemeth is mentioned only in the list of Levitie cities in 
Benjamin. Jos. 21,,,, gives them as Geba, Anathoth, and Almon Noy) 
while I Chr. 6,;(¢9) has them in the order Geba, Alemeth (Mp>oy), Anathoth. 
The variation in order indicates that ‘Alm#6n-‘Alemet lay between Geba 
and Anathoth, so that the time-honored identification with Hirbet ‘Almit, 
a ruined village a mile northeast of ‘Anatah, on the left of the road to 
‘Ain Farah, and the same distance southeast of Hizmeh, may be considered 
as certain. The modern ending of the name shows that the pointing in 
Chronicles is wrong; we must read instead ‘Almit. The relation between 
‘Almén and ‘ Almit is dialectical, and is precisely like that between tahton 
and tahtit, the it being the archaic feminine of the nisbeh in 7 (cf. Gesenius- 
Kautzsch?’ p. 250,h,1). The meaning of the name is obscure, and probably 
has as little to do with ‘almah, ‘‘girl’’ as Nearath-Noaran has to do with 
naarah (contrast Krauss, ZDPV XXXIX, 94-7, and cf. Kuemw, ZDPV 
XLI, 60). Azmaveth or Beth Azmaveth is mentioned directly three times 
in the Old Testament. In the list of towns belonging to those who had 
returned from the Exile, Ezra 2,, mentions Azmaveth (MVD), while Neh. 
7,, offers Beth Azmaveth, in both cases together with Anathoth. In a 
different connection, Neh. 12,, mentions the fields of Geba and Azmaveth. 
The town lay, therefore, between-Geba and Anathoth, ike Alemeth, and 
the identification with Hizmeh seems certain. Presumably the place was 
abandoned during the early Arab period, and naturally received the name 
Hirbet ‘Tzmeh, which was changed by partial assimilation of the voiced stop 
to the preceding voiceless, and became Hirbet Hizmeh, just as Hirbet 
Haiydn represents ancient ‘Aiydn, Ai. Another possibility is that Hizmeh 
is an abbreviation of an older Arabic Beit Hizmeh, for *Beit ‘Izmeh, Beth 
Azmaveth. The form of the name in Hebrew cannot well be correct, unless 


APPENDIX VII.—ALEMETH AND AZMAVETH 157 


we have to do with a popular etymology, as in the case of salmdwet (AYDP¥) 
for original salmitt or sollamot (Haupt), ‘‘darkness.’’ Just as the latter 
word, which became isolated in Hebrew from its congeners, was explained 
as ‘‘the shadow of death,’’ so an original *‘Azmét may have been altered 
to ‘Azmdwet. We may have to do with a late scribal etymology, however, 
since the Arabic form, Hizmeh, points to a Hebrew ‘Azmdt (cf. ‘Andtah 
for ‘Anatét and Bireh for Bérét, above). 

If it were true that Alemeth is only mentioned in pre-exilic literature, 
and Azmaveth only in post-exilic, we should have some ground for suspect- 
ing that the two towns were in reality identical. This is not the case, as it 
happens. I Chr. 8,,=9,, mentions among the descendants (!) of Saul 
both Alemeth and Azmaveth; as they are placed side by side, they were 
evidently adjacent, but distinct towns. Moreover, I Chr. 12,, we read in 
the list of the mighty men of David who were ‘‘brethren of Saul, Benja- 
mites’’ the names in succession of two men from each of the towns Gibeah, 
Beth Azmaveth (Bené ‘Azmawet means ‘‘men of Beth Azmavet’’—see 
JPOS I, 55, note 1). The collocation of Beth Azmaveth between Gibeah 
and Anathoth not only confirms the identification of it with Hizmeh, but 
also proves that it already existed in the early Israelite period, and is not, 
as might be thought, a post-exilic creation. 

Curious as the name is, Azmaveth appears to have been primarily a 
personal name. II Sam. 23,,—=I Chr. 11,, mentions as one of David’s 
mighty men Azmaveth of Bahurim. I Chr. 27,, says that David’s royal 
treasurer was Azmaveth, son of Adiel. These occurrences prove the point, 
as they cannot be explained away. It thus becomes certain that Beth 
Azmaveth is the original name of the town, and that Azmaveth is a con- 
formation to the widespread habit of dropping the Bét- in a compound 
place-name. Numerous cases of this tendency are given in Appendix 
VIII. It is possible that the Bét- was omitted because of the similarity 
between the names ‘Azmdwet or ‘Azmét and ‘Almén or ‘ Almit, belonging 
to twin villages. 


APPENDIX VIII—BETHANY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


Few villages in Palestine have such beautiful associations as Bethany, _ 
the home of Mary and Martha, whom Jesus loved, and their brother, 
Lazarus, for whose sake He wept. So profound an impression has been 
made upon the subsequent world by the touching story of Lazarus, and the 
remarkable resurrection of his dead body from the tomb, that the village 
has forgotten its old name, adopting a new one, el-‘Azariyeh, from the 
chapel and tomb which tradition associated with his name. It will surely 
not be without interest to find that Bethany is an ancient site, already 
mentioned in the Old Testament, and perhaps much older even than the 
Israelite period. 

The Greek form of the name is rather colorless, since Byfavia is meaning- 
less in Hebrew; a laryngeal has evidently been lost in transcription into 
Greek. The Syriac offers Bét ‘anya, which, in view of the many instances 
where the Syriae version of the New Testament has drawn from Syro- 
Palestinian sources, is almost certainly correct. For this reason alone the 
Talmudic Bet-hini or Bet-Yannai 03°77 Fi'D, 93N’ 43) cannot be identical 
with Bethany, as long believed by scholars. KuxErn, however, has recently 
shown (ZDPV XXXIII, 1910, p. 29) conelusively that Bet-hini has nothing 
whatever to do with Bethany, but is the Ba:roavara of the Onomasticon, 30, 5, 
in the mountains east of Caesarea (the old identification of the latter with 
‘Anin cannot be right). KugErn’s own combination of Bethany with a 
*Bé Te’endh, for *Bét-Te’endah, ‘‘ House of figs,’’ does not commend itself, 
since neither the Greek nor the Syriac form lends itself to such a hypothesis. 
DaLMAN, Orte und Wege Jesu,” p. 212, is the latest scholar to discuss the 
Aramaic prototype of the name ‘‘Bethany.’’ He suggests (note 4) that 
Bethany may be connected with the merchant clan of the Bené Hantn or 
Bené Hanan of the Talmud, in which ease he thinks that ‘‘Bethany”’ stands 
for *Bét Hanyd or *Bet Hananya. <A few lines above, however, Dalman 
makes the observation that the name ‘‘hingt wohl eher mit dem EHigen- 
namen ‘Anaja oder ‘Ananja zusammen und ist dann fiir uns farblos.’’ 
Here Dalman was on the very edge of making the correct identification, 
but, owing to one of the strange freaks of thought which sometimes come 
to vex the scholar, he failed to see the implications of his remark. 

In Neh. 11,, the town of Ananiah (JJ) is mentioned immediately after 
Anathoth and Nob. Since Nob lay south of Anathoth, on the Ras el-Mesarif, 
as is now admitted by all scholars,t and our entire list is arranged, as we 


1A careful examination of the Ras el-MeSarif and all the adjoining hills by the 
American School, in the winter of 1922-3, proved conclusively that the only possible site 


APPENDIX VIII.—BETHANY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 159 


have already seen, in strict geographical order, Ananiah evidently was situ- 
ated to the south or southeast of Nob. We must then look for it among 
_ the villages just east of the Mount of Olives. Only two ancient villages 
are known here—Bahurim and Bethany—so it is natural that we should 
try to identify the latter with Ananiah. Now, Roprnson, Biblicul 
Researches, U1, 263, followed by Guérin, Judée, I, 394, and most other 
scholars, has identified Ananiah with the village of Beit Hannina (so, not 
Beit Hanina, as the German scholars usually write, since this would be pro- 
nounced Beit Ehnina, which I have never heard),? four miles north of 
Jerusalem (on this village see above). It is true that, as GuéRIN observes, 
the name is sometimes pronounced as if it were Beit ‘Annind, but this is 
merely due to the fact that h and ‘ are often indistinguishable after a voice- 
less stop, just as in the cases of Hirbet Haiyan and *Hirbet or *Bét 
Hizmeh, discussed above. The name ‘“‘ ‘Annind’’ has certainly nothing to 
do with ‘Ananyah, while Hannina@ is a well-known Aramaic name. In view 
of the serious philological objections, we may safely reject this combination, 
especially since it is not favored by any indications of antiquity in Beit 
Hannina itself. 

Bethany, on the other hand, is an ancient village, dating back into 
Canaanite times. VINCENT has shown, in an important paper in RB, 1914, 
pp. 438-441, that the ancient site of Bethany was on a rocky summit over- 
looking the modern village from the west, at a distance of two or three 
hundred meters. Here have been discovered in recent years many ancient 
— cisterns, burial caves, and hypogaea, mostly either late Jewish or Canaanite. 
The Canaanite character of the oldest remains is fully established by the 
shape of the tombs, a perpendicular shaft giving access to a rude cave cut 
into the side of the well at the bottom, the pottery, and especially the 
bronze weapons discovered. Against this clear archeological testimony, 
the view of DauMAN, that the Bethany of Christ’s time lay about a kilometer 
farther east, can hardly stand. The statement in the Gospel of John, that 


for Nob was at the eastern end of Ras el-MeSarif, on the hill between Scopus and the 
Mount of Olives, assigned variously by different scholars. On the whole question see 
Vorer, JPOS III. 

* There is still a great deal of unclearness on the subject of the Arabic prothetic (not 
prosthetic !) vowel. In Modern Palestinian Arabic the vowel of a short unaecented 
syllable is elided. When in rapid speech the preceding word closes with a vowel there 
is no difficulty (e. g. sabi kbir, ‘a big boy’’), but when it stands alone or follows a 
consonant a helping vowel is prefixed (thus, ehmdr for himar; batn ikbir, ‘‘presumption, 
arrogance’’). Since true consonantal doubling is practically lost in the vernacular, one 
should watch the treatment of the short vowel attentively, in order to determine whether 
it is followed by a single or by a double consonant. For the Aramaic name Hannind 
see PAYNE SmitH, Col. 1321; it should be remembered that in Aramaic the old Semitic 
form qatil was usually replaced by a qattil. There was a Deir Hannina in Northern 
Syria; see Zeitschrift fur Semitistik, I, 31. 


160 EXCAVATIONS AT GIBEAH OF BENJAMIN (TELL EL-FUL) 


Bethany was fifteen stadia from Jerusalem, does not mean that it was fifteen 
stadia, or three kilometers distant in a straight line, but simply that it 
required a half-hour (half of thirty stadia, which in Josephus means an 
hour’s march) to walk from Jerusalem to Bethany by the very winding 
road around the Mount of Olives. 

There can thus be no objection to the identification of ‘Ananyah with 
Bét-‘anyah except perhaps on philological grounds, nor are these in any 
way serious. The haplology is most natural, and of a type so common that 
parallels are superfluous.* The alternation between place-names with Bét 
and without is also very common in Palestine.* This phenomenon has been 
alluded to several times above, but in order to place its. frequency above 
dispute, I have gathered the following instances from the glossary to BunL’s 
Geographie, adding a few cases which BuHt has not mentioned :° 

Beth-hoglah = ‘Ain Hajleh or Qasr Hajleh 
Beth-nimrah = Nimrah = Bethnambris = Tell Nimrin 
Beth-haram = Bethramphtha = Tell er-Rameh 
Beth-arbel = Arbela = Irbid 

Beth-azmaveth = Azmaveth = Hizmeh 

Beth-baal-meon = Beth-meon or Baal-meon = Ma‘tn 
Bét-dikrin = Hirbet Dikrin 

Bét-ma‘ on = Bethmaus = Tell Ma‘tn 

Bethoannabe = ‘ Annabeh 

Beth-shemesh = ‘ Ain Sems 

Beththamar = Baal-tamar 

Beth-tappuah = Taffth 

Beth-gader = Geder 

Beth-rehob = Rehob 

Beth-haccerem = Karem = Bethacharma = ‘Ain Karim 


In view of the foregoing considerations, we need hesitate no longer to 
identify Bethany confidently with the Ananiah of the Old Testament. The 
only astonishing thing about this combination is that it has not been made 
before. 


> But ef. as a very close parallel Avvad and Avavod, names applied to the same man, 
whose Hebrew name was Handn, by the New Testament and Josephus, respectively. 

* Where the second element is a proper name, either human or divine, the original 
name of the town must have contained Beth. I believe that all of the Beth-names of 
pre-Israelite date contained a divine name, while all Jewish place names of this type 
naturally are formed with a personal name. 

°To this list might be added many gentilies: ef. Beth-hdroén and Héréni; modern 
Beit-‘ar and ‘Ort, Beit-dejaén and Dejdni. In ancient Israelite times the gentilic from 
a place name in Beth was formed with Ben, Bené: e. g., Beth-‘ Anath, Ben-‘ Anath; 
Beth-rehob, Ben-rehob. 











DATE DUE 


FR LTTE TS 























GAYLORD PRINTEDINU.S.A. 


al We Pa 4 F eye F A Pe epee ae) ae. — 7 
¥ ; ~ 
- 


SS ose Fe - a i- 
: eae aoe 








| 


| 


—Speer Librar 


60 7335 


at Tell el-Fyy 
y 


MT) 


1 10 wn 


iil 1 
I 


1.A45¥.4 
Excavations and results 


DS10 





